Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 326 (UTT)

MUSLIM ALIAS MURSLEEN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/130/2025 · 2026-04-18

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 130 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. alongwith Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Muslim @ Mursleen, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 515 of 2024, under Section 8, 21, 27, 29 and 60 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S.- Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, applicant was apprehended alongwith two other co-accused persons and the alleged contraband which was recovered from his possession was 247 grams of smack. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is below commercial quantity, therefore, bar of Section 37 of NDPS would not come in play. He has further submitted that as per the FIR, inventory and arrest memo were prepared on the spot while FIR was lodged after a gap of almost six hours. 7. On the last occasion, this Court sought instructions from the State as to whether there is any corresponding G.D. entry of the FIR in the inventory report and the arrest memo. 8. On instructions, it is submitted by learned State Counsel that there is no such G.D. entry available. 9. Mentioning of the FIR number in the arrest memo and the inventory report, which were prepared on the spot would create serious doubt about the whole recovery and makes the recovery doubtful. 10. Considering the fact that recovered contraband was below commercial quantity and applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.04.2026 Ujjwal