IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.345 of 2024 Haseen ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence:- Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The applicant, Haseen (male), aged about 24 years, S/o Shakeel, R/o Village Nojli Nagal, PS Nagal, District Saharanpur, U.P., has filed the present bail application through his learned counsel. The learned AGA, representing the State of Uttarakhand, opposes the application. 2. The applicant has filed the present bail application in connection with Case Crime No. 735 of 2023, registered under Section 8/22C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Kotwali-Gangnahar, District Haridwar. 3. It has been submitted in the bail application that the applicant has been in custody since 18.12.2023 in connection with the present case. The applicant contends that the police, on the basis of mere suspicion, intercepted him and falsely implicated him in the alleged recovery of 550 injections of Tramadol without any independent witnesses. The FIR was lodged by SI Vikas Rawat at PS Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, alleging 2 that the said recovery was made during a chance encounter. 4. The applicant asserts that there was no compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and he was not given an opportunity to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. It is further contended that the search and seizure lacked independent witnesses, violating Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and various other provisions of the NDPS Act, including Sections 52, 55, and 57. The applicant claims that no inventory was prepared as required under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, nor was the sample drawn before a Magistrate. 5. It is also contended that while preparing the inventory at the time of the seizure of the contraband article (tramadol), as mentioned in the memo, Annexure No.3, there is no detail as the search and seizure procedure was conducted through videography or photography; that is mandated by law. 6. The applicant maintains that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He has no prior criminal history and submits that the essential ingredients of Section 8/22C of the NDPS Act are not made out against him. It was urged that he has been in custody since 18.12.2023, and continued incarceration would cause irreparable harm, particularly since the trial is likely to take considerable time. 3 7. The learned Government Counsel, opposing the bail application, submits that the order rejecting the applicant's bail by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Haridwar, is well-reasoned. It is contended that the applicant was caught red-handed with a commercial quantity of 550 Tramadol injections, which is a serious offence under the NDPS Act. 8. The prosecution argues that the applicant himself admitted that he had been involved in the smuggling of narcotic injections for the past 7-8 months, along with a person named Hariom Swami from Kota District Saharanpur. The applicant also disclosed that he worked at Comfort Medical Store in Teliwala and was supposed to deliver the contraband upon instruction. 9. The prosecution submits that the recovery memo was duly prepared, and the contraband was sealed as per procedure. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses, including SI Vikas Rawat (complainant), Head Constable Sudhir Kesla, Constable Ram Chandra, Constable Amit Kumar, and Constable Rakesh, all support the prosecution’s case. The prosecution contends that the applicant’s claim of false implication is baseless, as no enmity with the police has been established. 10. The prosecution further asserts that since the recovery was made from boxes, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not mandatory. It is also stated that the FSL report of the seized contraband is awaited and that enlarging the 4 applicant on bail at this stage may allow him to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Government Counsel for the State, and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court notes that the applicant has been in custody since 18.12.2023 and that the trial is yet to commence. 12. The Court also observes that while the prosecution has presented strong evidence, including the applicant’s purported confession and witness statements, the alleged violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, as argued by the defence, raises certain doubts that require examination at trial. It is also observed that, the inventory report which was shown to be prepared at the spot, bears the FIR no. and its details, which is not possible because the FIR was lodged much after the chance recovery. 13. It was also observed that, after the perusal of the inventory report the weight of the alleged contraband was concluded to be 110 grams, which is less than the commercial quantity and hence the applicant is entitled to bail. 14. Given the principles that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and considering the period of incarceration, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant while ensuring safeguards to prevent any interference in the trial. 5 15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Haseen (male), aged about 24 years, S/o Shakeel, R/o Village Nojli Nagal, PS Nagal, District Saharanpur, U.P., be released on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 735 of 2023, under Section 8/22C of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali-Gangnahar, District Haridwar, subject to the following conditions: i. On his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. ii. The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. iii. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses in any manner. iv. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed in the matter unless exempted for valid reasons. v. The prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail if it is found that the applicant has violated any of the above conditions. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 21.02.2025 NR/