2025:UHC:10550 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 No. 1642 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Through V.C.) 1. Mrs. Radha Arya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Perduman @ Chunu’ S/o Tikam, R/o P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar, is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 15.06.2025 bearing FIR No. 304 of 2025 P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant along with one Vikrant have been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is a non-commercial quantity i.e. 6.874 kg Ganja and there is no substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. She further argued that there is no recovery from the present applicant and whatever be the recovery has been shown is from the co-accused Vikrant. 5. On the other side, learned Brief Holder Mr. Himanshu Sain have not disputed that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is a non-commercial quantity, however, submits that from the place of occurrence the applicant in fact ran away and the recovery of contraband was recovered from the other co-accused. 6. Apart from this, the State counsel apprise to this court that the applicant have criminal history of five cases and one relates to robbery that too in district Bijnor. 7. In response to this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all the previous cases the applicant is already bailed out and the copy of the bail order has been shown to Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder. 8. 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 other co-accused is non- 2025:UHC:10550 commercial quantity and in other previous cases the applicant is already bailed out, this court is the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘Perduman @ Chunu’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.11.2025 PR