2025:UHC:9622 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 31.10.2025 BA1/1043 /2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Chandra Mauli Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Faijan Malik, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.66 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act, registered at P. S. Lalkuan, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.1 5. As per the prosecution case, the Sub- Inspector, along with other police personnel, was on duty for maintaining law and order and checking suspicious persons. During checking of passengers in a government roadways bus bearing registration No. UK06 PA 1371, one Mohammad Sameer, son of Mohammad Shafi, resident of Indira Nagar, P.S. Balbalpura, District Nainital, was found carrying a black bag. On search, 20 vials of Buprenorphine Injection I.P. (0.3 mg/ml) and 20 vials of Pheniramint Maleate (Avil) Injection (10 ml), both narcotic/ psychotropic in nature, were recovered from his possession. Consequently, he was taken into custody and a recovery memo was prepared on the spot, followed by registration of the present case at the concerned police station. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely implicated in the present case. It is 2025:UHC:9622 contended that the applicant is in judicial custody since 10.03.2025 and that the alleged recovery was made from a government bus, which is a public place; therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 43 of the NDPS Act. It is further argued that, as per the F.I.R., the applicant was arrested on 09.03.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was registered the next day, i.e., on 10.03.2025; yet the F.I.R. number is mentioned in the arrest memo itself, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the recovery proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the co-accused, Mohammed Shami, who is attributed with a similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025; therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. It is also argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time, and hence, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would vehemently oppose the bail application, submitting that the applicant has a previous criminal history and has also been charge-sheeted in another case under the NDPS Act. However, he fairly admits that the co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail by this Court and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is 2025:UHC:9622 allowed on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. (b) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court. (c) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation. (d) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses, either directly or indirectly and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. (e) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the court or to the investigating agency, to preclude risk of absconding. 11. The bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled in the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or if the applicant is found to have misused the liberty granted to him. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.10.2025 Mamta