HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.259 of 2025 Shuaib Khan ….....Applicant Versus Narcotic Bureau of Investigation (NC) Sub Zone Dehradun ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Karan Anand and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the NCB. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 05 of 2022, under Section 8/22C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station NCB Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the NCB, on 26.09.2022, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the co- accused Shiv Kumar, who revealed that he would sell it at the behest of the co-accused Anees and Siraj Ahmed. Subsequently, one more co- accused Rashid came into light, who according to the NCB would supply the narcotic substance to Siraj Ahmed. It is further case of the NCB that, in fact, according to the co-accused Rashid, he was only a supplier and the main accused is the applicant, who would supply narcotic substance to Rashid and others. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co- accused Anees, Siraj Ahmed, Shiv Kumar and Rashid, all have been granted bail. There is no material against the applicant. The applicant 2 had joined the investigation on 13.01.2023. Thereafter, he did not receive any notice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the NCB would submit that it is a case of trafficking; it is the applicant, who has been selling the narcotic substance through various persons; initially, when he was called on 13.01.2023, he misdirected the investigation and gave false statement that he is into the business of food supplements; he was not arrested on that date; thereafter, he did not appear; non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued against him; The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application, which was rejected; thereafter, he did surrender to custody on 03.02.2025 after destroying the evidence. Learned counsel for the NCB would also submit that it is not a case fit for bail because if the applicant is granted bail, it may become difficult of the NCB to curb this menace of trafficking. He would submit that, in fact, when the applicant surrendered to custody, his statement was recorded and again he misled the NCB. 6. The co-accused Shiv Kumar, Anees, Rashid and Siraj Ahmed Khan have already been granted bail. What is the case of the NCB is that the main handler is the applicant as stated by the co- accused. 7. It is further the case of the NCB that it is the applicant who misdirected the investigation and could not substantiate his statement. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 3 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.05.2025 Jitendra