2025:UHC:10635 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1577 of 2025 28th November, 2025 Farman --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bilal Ahmed and Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohni, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Applicant Farman, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 814 of 2025, under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the quantity of Termadole allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant is 54.08 grams, which is below the commercial quantity; and that the applicant has no criminal history. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further 2025:UHC:10635 2 submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is contended that although an inventory was allegedly prepared at the spot, the said inventory bears the FIR number even though the FIR was lodged much later. There is no corresponding entry in the General Diary explaining how the FIR number came to be mentioned in the inventory. Furthermore, no inventory certificate was prepared or certified by the Magistrate as required. Consequently, the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, inasmuch as the inventory has not been certified in terms of Form 4, Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.04.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that although Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for grant of bail, the Court must also consider whether there are serious procedural lapses affecting the credibility of the prosecution case. 6. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application; however, he submits that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused is less than the commercial quantity. 2025:UHC:10635 3 7. In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail. 8. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [[ (Alok Mahra, J.) 28.11.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0 2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553 DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.11.28 18:30:19 +05'30'