SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1972 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Sonu Rana’ S/o Shri Om Prakash is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 12.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 0117 of 2025 P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/21 r/w Section 60 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband Smack, which is shown to be recovered, is a non-commercial quantity i.e. 118.15 gms. smack. 5. Apart from this, he submits that the FIR has been lodged after the recovery at a belated stage of five hours. He also submits that there is no substantial compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the search and seizure has not been made in the presence of the Gazetted officer though there was adequate time to call the gazetted officer. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and he has no previous criminal history. 6. On the other side, learned State counsel has not disputed this fact that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is non-commercial quantity and the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and have no previous criminal history; however, the State counsel has denied that there is no substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is non-commercial quantity and furthermore as per the statement as given in the bail application itself the applicant has no previous criminal history, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Sonu Rana’ be released on bail on furnishing the personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 07.11.2025 PR