No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2026 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Hitesh Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 239 of 2025, under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S.- Ramnagar, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, an FIR was lodged on 27.06.2025 alleging therein that on 27.06.2025, when Police party was on patrolling duty in Dhikuli, at about 02:50 p.m., after having suspect, they stopped a Maruti Swift Dzire bearing registration number UK19TA-1172. When search was made, a person named Danish was driving the car and three jute sacks and four plastic bags were found in the boot of the car. All the bags contained ganja and a total ganja weighed was 68 Kg. and 2 grams. When inquired, he informed to the Police party that he was carrying the alleged contraband to the applicant – Hitesh Singh @ Bhuri. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; there is no identity of the applicant with the name Bhuri; the applicant has no link and connection with Danish and no recovery was made from the applicant. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature; that it was revealed that the applicant had telephonically talked 129 times with the co-accused Danish on his mobile number between 02.05.2025 to 27.06.2025 and that there are sufficient evidences against the applicant of being involved in the conspiracy with the co-accused Danish. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The present bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra J.) 20.11.2025 Ujjwal