HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 330 of 2024 Waqar Khan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.700 of 2023, under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.828 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.06.2024. 3. According to the FIR, on 28.11.2023, narcotic substances, in commercial quantity, were recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the prosecution case, the inventory 2 report was prepared at the spot, but it is typed, therefore, it doubts the prosecution case; the inventory report has not been signed by the applicant. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the police party had a laptop in which the inventory report was typed and print out was taken; the alleged recovered quantity is commercial. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. According to the prosecution, huge quantity of narcotic substances was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The FIR itself records that the recovery memo was prepared on the laptop of Sub-Inspector Vipin Kumar and it was taken in a pendrive and given to a constable to get a print out, which was brought on the spot. Therefore, it is not a ground for bail. 8. Insofar as the signature on the inventory report is concerned, it is not recorded that it was signed by everyone. 3 9. Having considered, this Court does not see any new ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.02.2025 Ravi Bisht