BA1/2298/2025 on 6 April, 2026

    0
    32
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    BA1/2298/2025 on 6 April, 2026

                                                                     2026:UHC:2389
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   BA1/2298/2025
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for
    the applicant.

    2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the
    State.

    SPONSORED

    3. Applicant- Aklakh, who is in judicial
    custody in connection with FIR/Case
    Crime No. 315 of 2025, under Sections
    8
    /22 of the Narcotics Drugs and
    Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
    registered at Police Station Kiccha, District
    Udham Singh Nagar has sought his
    release on bail.

    4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
    and perused the record.

    5. Applicant-Aklakh, who is in judicial
    custody in connection with FIR/Case
    Crime No. 315 of 2025, under Sections
    8
    /22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
    Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
    registered at Police Station Kiccha, District
    Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his
    release on bail.

    6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
    and perused the material available on
    record.

    7. As per the prosecution case, on
    25.09.2025, during routine checking, the
    police party apprehended the applicant
    and allegedly recovered 300 tablets of
    Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual
    Tablets (IP Vernor-N) and 20 Diazepam
    injections from his possession. On the
    basis of the said alleged recovery, the
    present F.I.R. came to be lodged against
    the applicant on the same day at Police
    Station Kiccha, District Udham Singh
    2026:UHC:2389
    Nagar.

    8. Learned counsel for the applicant would
    further submit that the applicant has been
    falsely implicated in the present case and
    the alleged recovery has been planted
    upon him. It is contended that the
    mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act
    have not been complied with during the
    alleged search and seizure. In particular,
    there is non-compliance of Section 52-A of
    the N.D.P.S. Act, inasmuch as no
    inventory of the alleged contraband was
    prepared in accordance with law and the
    samples were not drawn and certified
    before the competent Magistrate as
    required under the statute.

    9. It is further submitted that the
    mandatory safeguards under Section 50 of
    the N.D.P.S. Act have also not been
    complied with by the police authorities.
    Learned counsel submits that the alleged
    recovery has been shown as a chance
    recovery, yet the prosecution has failed to
    demonstrate compliance with the statutory
    safeguards provided under the Act.

    10. Learned counsel for the applicant
    further submits that no independent
    public witness was associated with the
    alleged recovery, though the place of
    recovery is stated to be a public place,
    which creates doubt on the prosecution
    version. It is further pointed out that
    although the applicant was allegedly
    apprehended at about 19:20 hours, the
    F.I.R. was lodged at about 22:08 hours,
    i.e., nearly three hours thereafter.
    However, the arrest memo and inventory
    report, which are alleged to have been
    prepared at the spot prior to lodging of the
    F.I.R., surprisingly bear the F.I.R. number,
    which creates a serious doubt regarding
    the genuineness of the prosecution case.

    11. Learned counsel for the applicant
    2026:UHC:2389
    further submits that the applicant is
    languishing in jail since 26.09.2025, he
    has no previous criminal history, and he is
    a permanent resident of District Udham
    Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no
    likelihood of his absconding or tampering
    with the prosecution evidence. It is also
    submitted that the trial is likely to take
    considerable time to conclude and
    continued incarceration of the applicant
    would serve no useful purpose.

    12. On the previous date of hearing,
    learned State counsel was directed to
    obtain instructions regarding any
    corresponding G.D. entry explaining the
    mention of the F.I.R. number in the arrest
    memo and inventory report, which were
    allegedly prepared at the spot prior to
    registration of the F.I.R.

    13. Learned State counsel would
    vehemently oppose the bail application
    and submits that the recovery has been
    made in accordance with law and the
    provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been
    complied with. However, he fairly concedes
    that no corresponding G.D. entry is
    available to explain the mention of the
    F.I.R. number in the documents allegedly
    prepared prior to lodging of the F.I.R.

    14. Having considered the rival
    submissions and perused the record, this
    Court finds that the arrest memo and
    inventory report allegedly prepared at the
    spot bear the F.I.R. number, even though
    the F.I.R. is stated to have been lodged
    subsequently. The prosecution has not
    been able to explain this discrepancy by
    producing any corresponding G.D. entry,
    which raises a doubt regarding the
    sequence of events as projected by the
    prosecution.

    15. Without expressing any opinion on
    the merits of the case, and considering the
    2026:UHC:2389
    overall facts and circumstances of the
    case, and the unexplained discrepancy
    appearing in the prosecution record, this
    Court is of the opinion that the applicant
    has made out a case for grant of bail.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    MAM
    Digitally signed by MAMTA
    RANI
    DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
    UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
    COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
    2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f

    TA
    244f3e584af1449e430ef900
    bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
    postalCode=263001,
    (Alok Mahra, J.)
    06.04.2026
    st=Uttarakhand,
    serialNumber=5de1751a4f1

    RANI
    d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
    Mamta 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
    004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
    Date: 2026.04.06 17:28:07
    +05’30’



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here