Uttarakhand High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 July, 2026
UKHC010102082026
2026:UHC:6162
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL/1098/2026
Manish Kumar .............Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal,
learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By means of the present writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the
First Information Report being Case Crime
No. 0222 of 2026, dated 02.06.2026,
registered at Police Station SIDCUL,
District Udham Singh Nagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 8, 22
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, “the N.D.P.S. Act“).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has
been lodged alleging, inter alia, that on
02.06.2026, a joint raid was conducted by
the police authorities along with the Drug
Inspector at a medical store situated in the
SIDCUL area. During the course of the
raid, co-accused Sagar was allegedly found
present inside the medical store and upon
search of the premises, 101 capsules of
UKHC010102082026
2026:UHC:6162
Spasmo Tramadol were allegedly recovered
from a drawer of the shop. It is alleged that
the said capsules were being illegally
possessed and sold from the medical store;
that, during interrogation, co-accused
Sagar allegedly disclosed that the medical
store belonged to the present petitioner,
that the drug licence had been issued in
the petitioner’s name, and that the
recovered capsules had been procured by
the petitioner for sale through the said
medical store; that, on the strength of the
aforesaid disclosure statement, the
investigating agency implicated the
petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that the petitioner is
the proprietor of the said medical store and
is carrying on his business under a valid
drug licence issued by the competent
authority, which remains valid up to
05.10.2030; that, the petitioner is innocent
and has falsely been implicated despite
there being no direct evidence connecting
him with the alleged recovery. It is further
submitted that Tramadol is a Schedule H1
drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 and the Rules framed thereunder,
and the petitioner, being a licensed dealer,
was legally authorised to stock and sell the
said drug in accordance with the statutory
provisions.
6. Learned counsel would further submit
that the alleged recovery of 101 capsules of
Spasmo Tramadol was effected from the
medical store in the presence of co-accused
Sagar, whereas the petitioner was neither
present at the spot nor was any
contraband recovered from his personal or
UKHC010102082026
2026:UHC:6162
conscious possession; that, no specific
overt act has been attributed to the
petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. and that
his implication rests solely upon the
disclosure statement allegedly made by the
co-accused during investigation; that,
except for the said disclosure statement,
there is no independent material collected
by the investigating agency connecting the
petitioner with the alleged commission of
the offence.
7. It is further submitted that, as per the
prosecution case itself, the recovery
comprises 101 capsules of Spasmo
Tramadol weighing approximately 55.55
grams, which is below the commercial
quantity prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act
and falls within the category of
intermediate quantity. It is, therefore,
contended that the rigours of Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted. Learned
counsel would further submit that the
disclosure statement of a co-accused, in
the absence of any corroborative material,
cannot by itself constitute the basis for
implicating another person under the
N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, the impugned
F.I.R. be quashed. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon various judgments.
8. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the State has
opposed the writ petition and submitted
that the drug licence of the medical store
from where the contraband was recovered
stands in the name of the present
petitioner, and the same has been duly
verified by the competent authority during
the course of investigation; that, the
recovery of 101 capsules of Spasmo
Tramadol weighing approximately 55.55
UKHC010102082026
2026:UHC:6162
grams from the medical store is not
disputed.
9. Learned Deputy Advocate General
would further submit that Tramadol has
been included as a psychotropic substance
in the Schedule specified under Section
2(xxiii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and its
possession and sale are regulated under
the provisions of the Act as well as the
applicable Rules. It is contended that
Schedule H1 drugs can be sold only on the
prescription of a registered medical
practitioner and the licensee is required to
maintain a separate register containing
particulars of purchase and sale in
accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules. He would further submit that during
the raid, the requisite statutory records
were allegedly not found available in the
medical store; that, that the investigation is
still in progress and the role of the
petitioner is yet to be fully ascertained. The
learned Deputy Advocate General would
also submit that the judgments relied upon
by the petitioner are distinguishable on
facts and are, therefore, inapplicable to the
present case.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. It is not in dispute that the alleged
recovery of 101 capsules of Spasmo
Tramadol was effected from the medical
store in respect of which the drug licence
stands issued in the name of the present
petitioner. The investigation is still at a
nascent stage and the investigating agency
is yet to examine the circumstances
relating to the procurement, storage and
sale of the recovered psychotropic
UKHC010102082026
2026:UHC:6162
substance, as well as the petitioner’s role
in the alleged offence. At this stage, the
Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous examination of the evidence or
adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact
while exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
12. The contentions raised by the
petitioner, including the evidentiary value
of the disclosure statement of the co-
accused, the legality of the possession of
Tramadol under a valid drug licence, and
the absence of conscious possession, are
matters requiring investigation and, if
necessary, consideration by the competent
court at the appropriate stage. At this
stage, it cannot be said that the allegations
made in the F.I.R., taken at their face
value, fail to disclose the commission of
any cognizable offence or that the case falls
within any of the well-recognised categories
warranting interference for quashing the
F.I.R.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to interfere with the impugned First
Information Report at this stage.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
MAM
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
(Alok Mahra, J.)
TA 21-07-2026
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
mamta st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.07.22 10:28:36
+05'30'
