IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.1614 of 2024 Ayush Rawat @ Ayush Singh Rawat ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA, with Smt. Sweta Badola Dobhal, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The applicant Ayush Rawat @ Ayush Singh Rawat, S/o Shri Trilok Singh, R/o Village Nigar, Post Office Marodagarh, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, has moved this bail application before this Court. 2. The applicant is in judicial custody as named in FIR No.181 of 2024, dated 27.04.2024, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered under Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, for the possession of 1270 grams, of contraband named ‘charas’. 3. The applicant has filed this bail application contending false implication as the bag and the car from which the alleged recovery was made is said to be belonging to the co-accused. The unexplained delay of approximately eight hours in lodging of the FIR, despite the Police Station being merely two kilometers away, raises doubt about the prosecution case. Additionally it is said that no video-recording was made during the search, seizure or arrest that weakens the reliability of the evidence. The arrest is said to be taken place in a crowded public area yet no 2 independent witnesses were considered, which violates the mandatory provisions of Section 100 CrPC. 4. It is also contended that the prosecution has also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 50, 52A (2), 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act, further diminishing the credibility of the case. 5. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that no scientific evidence establishes the seizure substances that can be termed as narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance. The applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in custody since 27.04.2024, and he is a B.B.A. student in ‘Dharmanand Uniyal Government Degree College, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal’, and his prolonged incarceration is jeopardizing his academic career. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun vide order dated 29.06.2024, which is now been challenged. 6. Considering the delay in the FIR, absence of the independent witnesses, and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may be released on bail. 3 7. The bail application was opposed on behalf of the learned counsel for the State Sri Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, who states that 1270 grams of the charas was recovered from the accused/applicant, and that comes under commercial quantity, and after getting the contraband so recovered from the appellant/accused from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the contraband so recovered was established as charas on the basis of the said report. While learned State Counsel admits that some delay in lodging of the FIR, it asserts that the delay has been adequately explained. It further disputes specific claim of the applicant in the bail application that whereby the applicant has said that no photography or the video-graphy was conducted. It is argued that photographs of the recovery alone cannot be treated as the legal proof under the established precedents, the prosecution maintains that the accused/applicant is directly involved in the serious offence, and if he is granted bail, the applicant may misuse the liberty and looking to the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the applicant is strongly opposed by the learned State Counsel. 8. After hearing both the parties, and on perusal of the records, and without going into the details as it will effect the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that applicant has ground enough to be released on bail, as he is a B.B.A. student and if he stays in jail for a long time incarceration, his academics and further career may get effected. More 4 or less, the mandatory provisions as pointed out in the bail application, at this juncture are not met out, though that may be ascertained during the trial that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, which has been admitted by other party and lack of the public witnesses, and no videography or photography of the seizure and search as mandated by the Act or so, also makes a ground at this juncture for the bail to be allowed. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. The applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to the furnishing of his personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/