Uttarakhand High Court
Suleman vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGES'S
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2870
BA1 No. 1653 of 2025
Suleman ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. S.R.S. Gill and Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant–Suleman, S/o Dilshad, R/o Village Buddhahedi, Police
Station Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection
with FIR/Case Crime No. 0142 of 2025, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/22, 27, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “NDPS Act“).
4. Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the Applicant, and
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has
been perused.
5. The main contentions advanced by learned counsel for the
Applicant are that, firstly, the co-accused has been granted bail and
the Applicant has been roped into the present case, though the
quantity of the seized drug, i.e., Diazepam, has been shown to be of
commercial quantity. It is not clear as to how the samples were
selected. It is submitted that the alleged commercial quantity of
Diazepam injections, numbering 2,915, were arranged and kept in
59 boxes. Out of these, 58 boxes contained 50 injections each,
whereas the 59th box contained only 15 injections, totalling 2,915
injections. Samples were taken from the said lot of 2,915
ampoules/injections; however, only five samples were drawn and
sent to the forensic laboratory. It is further stressed that it is not
clear from which boxes the samples were taken. It is also submitted
that, as per the mandatory provisions of Section 52(1) of the NDPS
Act, the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the Applicant. In the
arrest memo, the column meant for recording the grounds of arrest
has been left blank, which itself constitutes a major flaw. Further, it
is contended that the inventory, which is required to be prepared in
the prescribed Form No. 5, also suffers from a procedural defect.
The inventory is required to be certified by a Magistrate; however,
instead of certification, it merely bears the endorsement “seen,”
indicating absence of proper certification.
6. It is further submitted that under Section 29 of the NDPS Act,
the co-accused has already been granted bail on 15.04.2025. The
Applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.04.2025 and has no
previous conviction. The Applicant is stated to be an innocent
person who has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the
bail application, submitting that the present matter relates to a huge
recovery of commercial quantity of a scheduled drug, namely
Diazepam, amounting to 2,915 ampoules/injections, which has been
duly confirmed in the FSL report. It is contended that there are no
grounds to suggest that the Applicant has been falsely implicated. It
is further submitted that the Applicant has a criminal history
involving three cases; hence, the Applicant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, this Court finds that, at this stage, the grounds urged
on behalf of the Applicant for grant of bail appear to be well-
founded. Firstly, there are apparent procedural irregularities
regarding the sampling of the drug (Diazepam) allegedly recovered
from the possession of the Applicant. Secondly, there is a defect in
the inventory report as it has not been duly certified. Thirdly, it
appears that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
Applicant. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
20.04.2026
Shiksha
