No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 628 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Susheel Sharma @ Dimple, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 173 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, applicant was apprehended on 12.11.2024 at about 22:30 hours, wherein, 37 Kg and 100 grams of ganja was allegedly recovered from two bags. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that perusal of the FIR would reveal that inventory was prepared on the spot and the applicant was also arrested. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than three and a half hours, FIR was lodged, but, inventory report as well as the arrest memo contains the FIR number, which creates a serious doubt about the whole recovery process. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamaljit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of Punjab, in which Hon’ble Apex Court has set-aside the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the FIR number has been noted at the top of search and seizure panchanamas, which creates a serious doubt upon the whole prosecution story. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in judicial custody since 13.11.2024. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. He would further submit that it was a case of chance recovery and despite that provisions, as satisfied under the NDPS Act, were strictly complied with and furthermore, the contraband recovered from the applicant was much above the commercial quantity. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Be that as it may, entry of the FIR number in the inventory report as well as in the arrest memo creates a serious doubt about the whole recovery process. 9. Considering the above fact and also considering the fact that applicant is in judicial custody since 13.11.2024, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. 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.) 22.04.2026 Ujjwal