HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.277 of 2024 Ameer Alam ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Joshi, A.G.A.for the State. With First Bail Application No.2682 of 2023 Mohd. Noman ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Ameer Alam and Mohd. Noman are in judicial custody in FIR No.360 of 2023, the applicant Ameer Alam is in judicial custody under Section 8/22 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act), and the applicant Mohd. Noman is in judicial custody under Sections 8/22 (c)/60 of the Act, Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 09.09.2023, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the prosecution has not able to establish that the alleged recovered quantity is narcotic substance. The Forensic Science Laboratory (“the FSL”) report does not confirm it. It is argued that as per recovery memo, the narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the applicant was manufactured by New Wosa Pharmaceuticals LLP, 913 Deena Puram main market, Gokhle marg, Pune (M.H.), but the FSL report, which is received reveals that the sample that was examined by the laboratory was manufactured by M/s Ultrasun Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. 195, Survey No. 439/16- P10 Indl. Development Zone Panoli. The FSL report, Annexure 3 has also been referred to. It is argued that now when this fact has been brought to the notice of the Court by the applicants, the police is trying to change the evidence by placing another FSL report. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that there was an error in the first FSL report. Thereafter, when this 3 fact was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, he approached the court and another report has been sought from the FSL and due to error in first FSL report, the manufacturer’s name was wrongly mentioned. 7. The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel as to where is the statement of the FSL that there was error in the report? How did it happen? If FSL report writes wrong name of the manufacturer, it is the concerned expert in the FSL, who could clarify it. But, there is no document to confirm that, in fact, the examination of the same substance was done which was forwarded to the FSL. 8. In fact, on 10.12.2024, when this issue was raised, this Court has passed the following order:- “Let State file short affidavit including all the details with regard to sampling, sending of the samples, sample seal received by the FSL and the documents that was maintained by the FSL with regard to the seized articles and the records.” 9. State has not filed any document pertaining to the FSL report. The report is allegedly prepared by the Government Analyst, Uttarakhand. This Court has two reports now with regard to the same crime number and in both the reports, the name of manufacturer is different. This is, in fact, it is very serious on the part of FSL. As stated, State has not filed details of the FSL report to 4 reveal as to how the name of manufacturer is different in two reports. 10. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that it doubts the case at this stage, at least for the purpose of granting bail. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. Both these bail applications are allowed. 13. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police with a request that he may like to order for an inquiry in the matter and take such action(s), as he deems fit. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.01.2025 Ravi