2025:UHC:2000 Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/144/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. V.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant- Kavita is in judicial custody in relation to FIR dated 22.12.2024 registered as FIR No. 382 of 2024 at P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery of the contraband, which is commercial, i.e, 110.45 kg. ganja, was recovered from the house of the applicant on the instance of her husband who is also one of the accused and is in jail. He submits that there is no proper compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Apart from this, he submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 and has no previous criminal history. So far as the compliance of the mandatory provision of the NDPS Act is concerned, he submits that non compliance of the mandatory provisions will vitiate the trial and so far as applicant is concerned there are very remote chances of her conviction. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant’s husband has a criminal history and he is 2025:UHC:2000 also involved in another case of the similar nature. He further submits that in fact there is no recovery from the possession of the applicant, and the recovery, as shown, is nothing but planted one. 5. On other side, Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application by submitting that the contraband which was shown to be recovered from the house of the applicant is above the commercial quantity, however, he has not disputed this fact that there is no recovery from the possession of the applicant, and whatever recovery is made that is from the house of the applicant. He has also not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. So far as non compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS is concerned, he submits this is the subject matter of the trial. 6. A detail objection has also been filed. This Court after gone through with the objection, filed by the prosecution, what primarily observed that admittedly there is no recovery from the possession of the applicant, rather it is recovered from her house after search and seizure and the applicant is a house wife of the main accused who is also in jail in relation to the said crime, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the applicant is enlarged on bail she may not likely to commit any offence particularly when she has no previous criminal history. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further after gone through with the entire documents on record, and after taking into consideration the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of view that the applicant is not the habitual offender, and she is a house wife and there was no recovery from personal 2025:UHC:2000 search of the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Kavita be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.03.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:2000