IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No. 1702 of 2024 Lokesh ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr Rakesh Negi learned as a brief holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lokesh, 39 years old, son of Kaluram, resident of Village Bakhala, Police Station Ramala, District Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 129 of 2024, registered at Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery is fabricated. 4. It is argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including Sections 50 and 52-A, regarding search and seizure were not followed. No independent witnesses were present during the alleged recovery, raising doubts about the authenticity of the police version. 5. The applicant has no prior criminal record and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. 6. Further, the applicant has been in custody since 14.04.2024 and deserves bail to defend himself properly. 2 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, i.e., 1 kg 10 grams of charas, which attracts stringent punishment under the NDPS Act. 8. It is further submitted that compliance with all procedural safeguards, including the preparation of a proper recovery memo and submission of the recovered substance for forensic examination, has been ensured. 9. The FSL report confirms that the seized substance is charas. The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the recovery, as efforts were made to associate them, but none came forward. It is further contended that if bail is granted, there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant may abscond or tamper with evidence. 10. That, on 13.04.2024, during a routine patrolling and checking operation in light of the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections, the police intercepted a silver Santro car near the newly constructed Health Centre at Vikasnagar bypass road. 11. The driver attempted to flee but was apprehended. Upon search, the applicant and co-accused Mukesh were found in possession of 1 kg 10 grams of charas. A recovery memo was prepared on the spot, and the applicant was arrested. 12. Having considered the submissions of both parties and perused the case record, it is evident that the recovered contraband is above the threshold for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, attracting a minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 13. Under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, the burden lies on the accused to prove that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband. 3 14. The applicant has failed to rebut this presumption. The alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55 of the NDPS Act is a matter of trial and does not warrant bail at this stage. 15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offense and the quantity of contraband recovered, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to grant bail to the applicant. 16. Accordingly, the present Bail Application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 20.02.2025 SB