Uttarakhand High Court
“Gufran vs Unknown on 6 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2460
BA 1st No.174 of 2026
"Gufran Vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned AGA, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case arises
from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for the
Applicant – Gufran, who has been accused in Case Crime No.08
of 2026, under Sections 8 read with Section 21 and Section 60
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.
4. The main consideration for bail as advanced by the
learned counsel representing the Applicant is that firstly the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter, and
the contraband so alleged to have been recovered from his
possession is 26.10 grams of smack (heroin), which is below the
commercial quantity. Second submission which is advanced for
the consideration of the bail is that in the arrest memo and the
inventory report, which was prepared on the spot and while
preparing the same, prior to the lodging of the FIR, FIR number
had been mentioned that cannot be so; after the search and
seizure of all the documents that is done on the spot, FIR is
lodged after that, thus, there is a gross procedural error and the
mandatory and directory provisions laid down under Sections
50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, has not been complied with,
and it is requested that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned State Counsel has, however, opposed the present
bail application of the Applicant first on the ground that the
Applicant has a criminal history and all the procedure that are
directive or mandatory in nature as provided in the NDPS Act
have been followed. In the present matter, the directive of
Section 50 laid down under the NDPS Act, does not apply in the
present matter as the present matter does not relates to the
personal search as the contraband so shown to have been
recovered from the Applicant/accused, was recovered from the
boot/dicky of the scooty, which he was riding and not from his
person.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, it is a fit case for bail as there are gross procedural errors
evidently at the face of it as prior to the lodging of the FIR, the
FIR number has been mentioned.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed
that the Applicant – Gufran, who has been accused in Case
Crime No.08 of 2026, under Sections 8 read with Section 21
and Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bahadrabad, District
Haridwar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned court. The Applicant shall
cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the
liberty granted to him.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
06.04.2026
Nitesh/
