ADVERTISEMENT
Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Thakur vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 May, 2026
2026:UHC:4140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026
Deepak Thakur ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Counsel Presence:
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, and Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Oral)
1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant under
section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
enlargement on bail in relation to FIR No. 323 of 2015, registered in
Police Station, Rudrapur, District - Udham Singh Nagar, U/s 8, 22, 29
of NDPS Act and 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhitarelating to commission of illegal trafficking/possession of
psychotropic drugs in conspiracy with others by using forged
documents for cheating and facilitating the offence.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.2025, while the police party
was on routine patrol duty for maintenance of law and order, at about
16:10 hours, a credible secret information was received from a special
informer to the effect that cartons containing drug injections and
tablets worth crores of rupees were being transported near the
National Highway. Acting upon the said information, the police
conducted interception and the information was found to be true.
During inquiry, it surfaced that the contraband was being transported
from Jalandhar to Kashipur and that the payment for the same had
allegedly been made by co-accused Ripul Chauhan. It is further
alleged that co-accused Ripul Chauhan and Deepak Thakur were
engaged in wholesale trade and, for the purpose of procuring a drug
1
1
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand
2026:UHC:4140
licence, the present applicant had allegedly prepared a forged
experience certificate in the name of the co-accused.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and is wholly innocent of the
offences alleged against him. It is contended that there exists no
direct, cogent, or substantive material on record connecting the
applicant with the alleged commission of the offence and that the FIR
itself has been lodged against an unknown person.
5. It is further submitted that no contraband or incriminating material
has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant
and the State's case rests solely upon bald and unsubstantiated
allegations.
6. Learned counsel further submits that neither the name of the
applicant's medical store, namely Santosh Pharma, finds mention in
the FIR nor is the same reflected upon the cartons allegedly
containing the contraband substances.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant is a licensed businessman
possessing a valid drug licence, operative till 25.05.2028, along with
a valid GSTIN registration, copies whereof have been annexed with
the bail application, thereby demonstrating that the applicant is
carrying on a legitimate pharmaceutical business.
8. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act
have not been complied with inasmuch as the investigating agency
failed to adhere to the safeguards contemplated under Sections 42 and
50 of the NDPS Act, including non-communication of the alleged
secret information to the superior officers in the manner prescribed
under law.
9. Learned counsel further submits that despite the alleged recovery
having been effected near a National Highway, no independent public
witness has been associated with the search and seizure proceedings,
which renders the State's story doubtful and improbable.
2
2
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand
2026:UHC:4140
10.It is further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 3(5) and 318(4)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not attracted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and that the offences under Sections
336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS have been mechanically invoked solely
with a view to falsely implicate the applicant.
11.It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial
custody since 19.11.2025 and continued incarceration would serve no
useful purpose, particularly when the investigation against him is not
supported by any legally admissible material.
12.Learned counsel further submits that in FIR No. 0477 of 2025 dated
19.11.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 60 and 8 of the NDPS
Act and FIR No. 0507 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025 registered under
Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS, the applicant has
already been granted bail by the competent Court and, therefore, on
the principle of parity as well, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail in the present case.
13.It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident, having
deep roots in society, and there exists no likelihood of his absconding,
tampering with State's evidence, or influencing witnesses in the event
he is released on bail.
14.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the
applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving offences under
the NDPS Act pertaining to illegal trafficking of psychotropic
substances of huge commercial value and, therefore, the applicant
does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
15.It is further submitted by the State that the police had received
credible secret information from a special informer regarding
transportation of the contraband, which upon interception and
checking was found to be true and correct.
16.Learned counsel for the State further submits that the investigating
agency has duly complied with the mandatory provisions and
3
3
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand
2026:UHC:4140
procedural safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act during the
course of search, seizure and investigation.
17.It is further submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and has
previously been involved in cases of similar nature, which clearly
reflects his criminal antecedents and disentitles him from the
discretionary relief of bail.
18.It is further submitted that the offence alleged against the applicant
involves commercial quantity of psychotropic substances and,
therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely
attracted, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail.
19.It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed active
complicity of the applicant in facilitating the illegal trade by allegedly
preparing forged documents for procurement of drug licence in
favour of the co-accused, thereby indicating his conscious
involvement in the organised illegal activity.
20.It is further submitted that merely because no recovery has been
effected from the personal possession of the applicant, the same by
itself is not sufficient to exonerate him at this stage in view of the
material collected during investigation indicating his involvement in
the offence.
21.It is also submitted that the previous criminal cases registered against
the applicant, though stated to be pending or in which bail has been
granted, nevertheless reflect his repeated involvement in offences of
similar nature and disentitle him from claiming equitable
discretionary relief.
22. The court finds that the case relies upon mere assumption and doubt
and no substantive, direct, or corroborative evidence has been brought
on record against the applicant at this stage.
23.This Court further finds that no direct evidentiary material has been
placed before it so as to prima facie establish the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of the alleged offence.
24.The applicant is in judicial custody since 19.11.2025, and the
investigation in the matter already stands substantially completed. In
4
4
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand
2026:UHC:4140
such circumstances, continued incarceration of the applicant,
particularly in the absence of strong prima facie incriminating
material, would serve no useful purpose.
25.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, at the stage of
consideration of bail, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither
required nor permissible, and the Court is only expected to form a
prima facie opinion on the basis of the material available on record.
The guilt of the accused is yet to be conclusively established during
trial, and prolonged incarceration before adjudication of guilt would
amount to pre-trial punishment.
26.Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on
record, the absence of direct incriminating evidence, the lack of
substantive corroborative material, the absence of independent
witnesses, the inconsistencies in the State's story, 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
considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant
of bail.
ORDER
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the
applicant Deepak Thakur be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:22.05.2026
NR/
SPONSORED
5
5
First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ————Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand
[ad_1]
Source link
