2025:UHC:9835 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 2 0 9 9 / 2 0 2 5 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel with Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant Laxmi Fartyal, W/ o Lalit Fartyal is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 17.10.2025, bearing FIR No. 0037 of 2025, registered at P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/ 20 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery, as shown, is nothing but planted one. He submits that as per the recovery memo it is shown to be a chance recovery though the recovery has been made in a public place, but, there is no compliance of Section 43 of the Act . He submits that though arrest has been shown from the public place but there is no independent witness to prove the alleged recovery from the possession of the applicant and there is also no satisfactory explanation in this regard in the arrest memo. He further submits that also there is no proper compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, since, the applicant has not been asked to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, though, as per recovery there is no reference that there is any denial from the applicant to be 2025:UHC:9835 searched before the Gazetted Officer. He further submits that the inventory and the arrest memo have been prepared at the spot which are not supported with the relevant G.D. entries and even there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A of the Act. He submits that no ground of arrest has been given to the applicant by arresting officer which is completely in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and, as such, arrest of the applicant is bad in law. Apart from this he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and she is serving in a veterinary department as a “Animal Care Assistant” and is also a house wife having two minor children aged about 10 to 12 years and her husband is serving in a Hotel at Delhi and, therefore, being a lady she is entitled to get privilege in terms of proviso to Section 480 of BNSS. He further submits that there is no substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act which itself reveals that there are sufficient ground that the applicant is not involved in the said offence, and, furthermore since the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is serving in veterinary department as Animal Care Assistant and if she is enlarged on bail there is no any such likelihood that she will commit any offence while on bail. He submits that the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered is commercial one and, since, the conditions, as stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are fulfilled, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail. 5. On the other side, Mr. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered is commercial one, therefore, in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the applicant 2025:UHC:9835 does not deserve for bail. He further argued, on the basis of the written instructions, that there is proper compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the inventory was also prepared, and, since it is a chance recovery, therefore, there is no independent witness. So far as providing ground of arrest before arrest is concerned a reference of which has been given in para 23 of the bail application, Mr. Sharma submits that there is no denial in the written instructions, though, in the arrest memo applicant put her signature. About the criminal antecedent the learned State counsel, as per the written instructions, fairly admits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that admittedly the search was conducted in a public place and there is no independent witness and furthermore no such opportunity was given to the applicant to be searched before the Magistrate concerned, which, prima facie, reveals that there is no substantial compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is also not disputed that applicant being a lady and serving in veterinary department having two minor children, she is entitled to get privilege under Section 480 of BNSS. Thus, this Court is also of the view that conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are fulfilled, since, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, therefore, there is no such possibility that if the applicant is enlarged on bail she will misuse the bail or commit the crime. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 2025:UHC:9835 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Laxmi Fartyal 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. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 0 7 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Parul 2025:UHC:9835