2025:UHC:8967 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 09th OCTOBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1877 of 2025 Arjun alias Nannu ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, 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 – Arjun alias Nannu is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 & Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in First Information Report No.202 of 2025, registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. 2. According to the First Information Report dated 12.08.2025, the police apprehended the applicant. He was searched. The police recovered 36.98 gm. smack from his possession. 3. Heard Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned 1 2025:UHC:8967 Additional Advocate General for respondent. 4. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, 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 Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. He is in custody since 12.08.2025, 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:8967 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 – Arjun alias Nannu 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