2025:UHC:11039 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 1 1 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2 3 8 0 of 2 0 2 5 Siraj ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate. Hon ’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J. The applicant – Siraj is in custody for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phototrophic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in Case Crime No.544 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. 2 . According to the First Information Report dated 31.10.2025, the applicant was apprehended by the police on suspicion. He was searched. The police recovered 5.6 gm. smack from a polythene kept in the right pocket of his jeans. He was arrested. 3 . Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent. 4 . Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that 1 2025:UHC:11039 the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police. The alleged smack was not recovered from his possession. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery from the applicant. This fact also makes the story of the police doubtful. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. The alleged recovered contraband does not fall under the category of commercial quantity, and, the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was not followed. 5 . Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally. 6 . As per Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gm of heroin is small quantity and greater than 250 gm is commercial quantity (Entry No.56). 7 . The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8 . Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and 2 2025:UHC:11039 circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9 . The Bail Application is allowed. 1 0 . Let the applicant – Siraj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 11.12.2025 Pant/ 3