2025:UHC:2658 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2271 of 2024 Junaid Raza …Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel. . Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned brief Holder . Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant, who is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 211 of 2024, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant faces charges under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "N.D.P.S. Act"). 2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. 3. According to the state's case, on 25.04.2024, a police party, along with other officials, was on routine patrol when they noticed a person traveling from Kiccha towards Rudrapur. This individual was carrying a white bag. Upon noticing the police, the individual became visibly nervous and attempted to retreat but was apprehended by the police party. 4. As per the recovery memo, the following contraband was recovered from the white bag carried by the applicant: (i) 15 ampoules of Avil (10 ml each); (ii) 15 ampoules of Buprenorphine Injection I.P.; 1 2025:UHC:2658 (iii) 15 ampoules of Diazepam Injection I.P. (2 ml each). 5. The applicant’s counsel has raised several issues in support of the bail application. The primary contention concerns the Buprenorphine ampoules, where the quantity or strength (ml) per ampoule is not mentioned in the recovery memo. This omission is significant, as under the N.D.P.S. Act, the severity of punishment depends on whether the quantity of contraband constitutes a commercial or non-commercial quantity. Without this detail, it is not possible to accurately determine the classification of the contraband. 6. Furthermore, the applicant’s counsel argues that the inventory report and related documents were prepared at the location of the search, and the case number mentioned in these documents was recorded before the FIR was lodged, which raises doubts about the authenticity and integrity of the documents. The applicant also points out that the seizure and handling of the contraband were not in compliance with the prescribed procedures under the relevant Gazette Notification (Part II- Section 3-Sub-Section (i) dated 23.12.2022), which mandates that narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances must be weighed separately, numbered serially, and packed in tamper-proof containers. The failure to follow these procedures further undermines the state's case. 7. In contrast, the learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application, asserting that the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act were followed during the arrest and search. The State also contends that any discrepancies in the recovery memo, such as the unspecified quantity of Buprenorphine, were rectified in the General Diary (G.D.) and other related documents. The State further argues that the quantity of the contraband recovered, based on the notification 2 2025:UHC:2658 under the N.D.P.S. Act, constitutes a commercial quantity, and therefore, the bail application should be rejected. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Court observes that the failure to specify the quantity of Buprenorphine in the recovery memo creates a reasonable doubt regarding the commercial or non-commercial nature of the contraband. This omission is crucial as the N.D.P.S. Act imposes stricter penalties for commercial quantities. Additionally, the procedural irregularities in the handling of the contraband, such as the failure to comply with the Gazette Notification regarding the proper seizure and storage procedures, further undermine the credibility of the state’s case. 9. Moreover, the premature mention of the case number before the FIR was lodged raises serious concerns about the authenticity of the documentation and the integrity of the state's evidence. 10. In light of these factors, the Court concludes that the procedural lapses and the discrepancies in the recovery memo have created sufficient doubt about the reliability of the state's case. Therefore, after considering the arguments of both parties, the Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. ORDER Let the applicant, Junaid Raza, be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Accordingly, the bail Application is allowed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 08.04.2025 Arti 3