2025:UHC:10617 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.1549 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.63 of 2025, under Section 8, 22, 23 & 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 212 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely implicated in the instant crime, has no criminal history. He submits that the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant is below commercial quantity. It is contended that the Inventory Report has not been certified by the Magistrate in accordance with Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. demonstrates that the inventory is shown to have been prepared at the spot, yet it strangely contains the F.I.R. number, which raises serious doubt regarding its genuineness. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been held that 2025:UHC:10617 procedural irregularities and non- compliance with mandatory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act are material considerations while adjudicating bail applications. It was further held that although Section 37 of the Act prescribes stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail, the Court is nonetheless required to examine whether serious procedural lapses exist which may undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail applicant and submits if applicant is granted bail, he will flee away from justice, as he hails from Nepal. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicants deserve bail at this stage. 6. Since the applicant is a Nepali National, therefore, the bail application is allowed in the following terms: Let the applicant, namely, Aditya Khuna alias Sanjay Dangora be released on bail, on executing personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and furnishing two reliable local sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the 2025:UHC:10617 facts of this case. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the complainant/ informant will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 28.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.11.28 18:21:43 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10617