BA1/286/2026 on 27 March, 2026

    0
    52
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    BA1/286/2026 on 27 March, 2026

                                                                     2026:UHC:2217
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   BA1/286/2026
    
    
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Ms. Unnati Pant, learned counsel
    for the applicant.

    2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief
    Holder for the State.

    SPONSORED

    3. Applicant- Ravindra Singh, who is
    in judicial custody in connection with
    FIR No. 0048 of 2026, under Sections
    8
    /20 of the Narcotics Drugs and
    Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
    registered at Police Station Haldwani
    District Nainital has sought his release
    on bail.

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

    5. As per the prosecution case, on
    08.02.2026, during routine checking, the
    police party allegedly apprehended the
    applicant and recovered contraband from
    the bag carried by him. On the basis of the
    said alleged recovery, the present F.I.R.
    came to be registered against the applicant
    on the same day.

    5. Learned counsel for the applicant
    submits that the applicant has been
    falsely implicated in the present case and
    that the mandatory provisions of the
    N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with
    by the prosecution. It is further submitted
    that the mandatory safeguards provided
    under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have
    also not been followed. Learned counsel
    further submits that the alleged recovery
    has been shown as a chance recovery.

    6. Learned counsel for the applicant
    further submits that the quantity of
    contraband allegedly recovered from the
    2026:UHC:2217
    possession of the applicant is below the
    commercial quantity. It is further
    contended that the applicant has no
    previous criminal history and is in judicial
    custody since 08.02.2026. It is also
    submitted that no independent public
    witness was associated with the alleged
    recovery, which casts serious doubt on the
    prosecution version. It is further pointed
    out that although the applicant was
    allegedly arrested at about 4.45 p.m. on
    the same day, the F.I.R. was lodged at
    about 8.58 p.m. nearly four hours
    thereafter. However, the inventory report
    and the arrest memo, which are alleged to
    have been prepared at the spot prior to
    lodging of the F.I.R., bear the F.I.R.
    number.

    7. Learned counsel therefore submits
    that the mention of the F.I.R. number in
    the inventory report and arrest memo,
    despite the fact that the F.I.R. was
    registered subsequently, creates a serious
    doubt regarding the genuineness of the
    alleged recovery and indicates that the
    documents were prepared later on. It is
    further submitted that the applicant is a
    permanent resident of District Nainital and
    there is no likelihood of his absconding or
    tampering with the prosecution evidence.
    It is also contended that the trial of the
    case is likely to take considerable time to
    conclude.

    9. Per contra, learned State counsel has
    vehemently opposed the bail application
    and submitted that the provisions of the
    N.D.P.S. Act have been duly complied with
    and that the recovery has been effected in
    accordance with law. However, he fairly
    conceded that the quantity of contraband
    allegedly recovered from the possession of
    the applicant is below commercial quantity
    and that there is no corresponding G.D.
    entry explaining the mention of the F.I.R.
    number in the documents prepared at the
    2026:UHC:2217
    spot.

    10. Without expressing any opinion on
    the merits of the case, and considering the
    submissions advanced by learned counsel
    for the parties as well as the material
    available on record, particularly the nature
    and quantity of the contraband allegedly
    recovered, this Court is of the view that
    the applicant has made out a case for
    grant of bail.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.)
    27.03.2026
    Mamta
    2026:UHC:2217



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here