Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1837/2025 on 19 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 1837 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. The applicant – Mohd. Shami, who is
in judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 221 of 2025, under
Section 29 read with Sections 8/22 of NDPS
Act, registered at Police Station- Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his
release on bail.
3. In this case, applicant has been made
an accused under Sections 8 and 22 of
NDPS Act read with Section 29 of NDPS Act.
One Anas was allegedly arrested with an
alleged contraband of 2400 capsules of
tramadole and dicylomine HCL capsules.
Anas admitted before the Police that the
alleged recovered contraband belongs to his
brother Mohd. Shameem, who has told him
to carry this carton and deliver it near a
banquet hall where delivery could be
affected. Mohd. Shami was arrested on the
confessional statement of Anas and Mohd.
Shami confessed before the Police that he
purchased the alleged contraband from
Mohd. Shehbaz.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that applicant has falsely been
implicated in the case; that applicant could
not be made an accused only on the basis of
the confessional statement of the another
co-accused. Thus, the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail. To support his case,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. For ready reference,
paragraph nos. 155, 158.1 and 158.2 of the
aforesaid judgement are extracted
hereinbelow:-
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an
officer designated under Section 42 or
Section 53 can be the basis to convict a
person under the NDPS Act, without any non
obstante clause doing away with Section 25
of the Evidence Act, and without any
safeguards, would be a direct infringement of
the constitutional guarantees contained in
Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
158.1. That the officers who are invested
with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS
Act are “police officers” within the meaning of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of
which any confessional statement made to
them would be barred under the provisions of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot
be taken into account in order to convict an
accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as
a confessional statement in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act.”
5. On this basis, learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that applicant has
been made an accused only on the
confessional statement of the co-accused,
who was allegedly arrested with the alleged
contraband and no contraband as such has
been recovered from the applicant. Learned
counsel for the applicant would further
submit that against the column of ‘grounds
of arrest’, only the ‘reasons of arrest’ have
been mentioned. Learned counsel would
further submit that ‘reasons of arrest’ are
different from ‘grounds of arrest’, as has
been mentioned in the judgment passed by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir
Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254. For ready reference,
paragraph no.48 of the aforesaid judgement
is extracted hereinbelow:-
“48. It may be reiterated at the cost of
repetition that there is a significant difference
in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and
“grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest”
as indicated in the arrest memo are purely
formal parameters viz. to prevent the
accused person from committing any further
offence; for proper investigation of the
offence; to prevent the accused person from
causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear or tampering with such evidence in
any manner; to prevent the arrested person
for making inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to the investigating
officer. These reasons would commonly apply
to any person arrested on charge of a crime
whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be
required to contain all such details in hand of
the investigating officer which necessitated
the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously,
the grounds of arrest informed in writing
must convey to the arrested accused all basic
facts on which he was being arrested so as to
provide him an opportunity of defending
himself against custodial remand and to seek
bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would
invariably be personal to the accused and
cannot be equated with the “reasons of
arrest” which are general in nature.”
6. Learned State Counsel, on the other
hand, has vehemently opposed the bail
application. It is further submitted that
there was money trail between Mohd.
Shami and Mohd. Shehbaz.
7. To this, learned counsel for the
applicant would argue that the amount of
transaction does not match with the cost of
the property, as per the FIR.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
9. Considering the submission of learned
counsel for the parties and also considering
the fact that applicant has no previous
criminal history and no recovery was made
from him and he was made the accused
only on the confessional statement of the
co-accused, without expressing any opinion,
as to the final merits of the case, this Court
is of the view that the applicant deserves
bail at this stage.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail,
on executing personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to
the satisfaction of Court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
19.05.2026
Ujjwal
