Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1958/2025 on 20 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1141
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1958/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Applicant-Amit Kumar, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR
No. 390 of 2025, registered under
Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at
Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, has sought his release on
bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the record.
5. As per the prosecution case, on
08.09.2025, during routine checking, the
police party apprehended the applicant
and allegedly recovered 24 capsules
containing Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol
HCL and Acetaminophen from his
possession. On the basis of the said
alleged recovery, the aforesaid FIR was
lodged against the applicant on
09.09.2025 at about 03:30 hours.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated. It is contended that
although the applicant was allegedly
apprehended on 08.09.2025 at about
22:50 hours, the FIR was registered in
the early hours of 09.09.2025 at 03:30
hours, which casts doubt upon the
prosecution story. It is further submitted
2026:UHC:1141
that no independent public witness was
associated with the alleged recovery. It is
also argued that the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act, including
Section 50, have not been strictly
complied with.
7. Learned counsel further submits
that the quantity of the alleged
contraband recovered from the
possession of the applicant is below
commercial quantity and, therefore, the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
not attracted in the present case. It is
submitted that the applicant is in
judicial custody since 09.09.2025; that,
his bail application has already been
rejected by the court below vide order
dated 04.10.2025; that, the applicant is
stated to be a permanent resident of
District Udham Singh Nagar and there is
no likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with prosecution evidence;
that, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude, therefore,
the applicant be released on bail.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the bail
application. However, he does not
dispute the fact that the alleged recovery
is below commercial quantity and that
the applicant is in custody since
09.09.2025. It is also not disputed that
the bail application of the applicant was
rejected by the court below on
04.10.2025.
9. Having considered the rival
submissions, the nature of accusation,
the quantity of the alleged contraband,
the period of incarceration already
undergone by the applicant, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that
2026:UHC:1141
the applicant has been able to make out
a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the
bail application deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, the 1st bail application
is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall execute a
personal bond and furnish two
reliable sureties in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(b) The applicant shall not leave the
country without prior permission of
the court.
(c) The applicant shall appear before
the investigating officer as and when
required and cooperate with the
investigation.
(d) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence or witnesses, either
directly or indirectly and shall not
indulge in any criminal activity while
on bail.
(e) The applicant shall surrender his
passport, if any, to the court or to
the investigating agency, to preclude
risk of absconding.
11. The bail granted to the applicant
shall be liable to be cancelled in the
event of any violation of the aforesaid
conditions or if the applicant is found to
have misused the liberty granted to him.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
20.02.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1141
