2025:UHC:8968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 09th OCTOBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1891 of 2025 Intezar ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant – Intezar is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in Case Crime No.383 of 2025, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. 2. According to the First Information Report dated 15.09.2025, the applicant was apprehended by the police. He was searched. The police recovered 26.30 gm. smack from his possession. 3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent. 1 2025:UHC:8968 4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated by the police. The alleged smack was not recovered from his possession. The said recovery was planted. There was no independent witness of the alleged recovery from the possession of the applicant. This fact also makes the story of the police doubtful. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. He is in custody since 15.09.2025, and, the quantity of the alleged recovered contraband does not fall under the category of the commercial quantity. 5. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, has opposed the bail application orally. 6. As per Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gm of smack (heroin) is small quantity and greater than 250 gm is commercial quantity (Entry No.56). 7. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned 2 2025:UHC:8968 counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant – Intezar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 09.10.2025 Pant/ 3