2025:UHC:2848 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 17th April, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 397 of 2025 Akram …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel through video conferencing. Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), filed by the applicant Akram, s/o Ikram, resident of Kanwali Village, GMS Road, Dehradun, District Uttarkashi, who is in custody since 09.02.2025, in connection with FIR No. 40 of 2024, registered at Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi, under Sections 8, 20, 27A, 29, and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. The applicant is alleged to have financed the procurement of 2 kg and 16 grams of charas (cannabis resin) a commercial quantity based on statements of co-accused and financial transactions totalling Rs. 3,22,000/- transferred from his Bank of Baroda account to co-accused Yunus Ahmed’s Indian Bank account 1 2025:UHC:2848 between October and November 2024. 3. The applicant was not present at the scene of seizure and is not named in the FIR. He was arrested about two months later. The Special NDPS Court rejected his bail vide order dated 28.02.2025, citing the gravity of the offence and the ongoing investigation. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the allegations rest entirely upon the uncorroborated statements of co-accused persons and speculative inferences drawn from certain bank transactions. No contraband was recovered from his possession. The applicant, a commission agent in the apple trade, claims the transactions were for legitimate business. He has no criminal antecedents. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel, opposing the bail application, submits that the contraband quantity falls within commercial limits, thereby invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the statements of co-accused and the bank transactions establish a prima facie case of illicit financing under Section 27A. 7. Section 37 of the NDPS Act lays down a twofold test: (i) that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail, and (ii) that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. 2 2025:UHC:2848 8. The first requirement stands fulfilled. As regards the second, the prosecution’s case is founded primarily on co-accused statements and bank transactions. As held in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159, co-accused confessions are not substantive evidence and require corroboration. 9. The applicant has provided a plausible explanation for the bank transfers, attributing them to commercial apple trade dealings. There is no recovery of contraband from his possession. As observed in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798, absence of direct recovery is a relevant factor for bail under NDPS. 10. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has a fixed place of residence. The apprehension of witness tampering appears speculative. 11. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit a similar offence while on bail. 12. In the considered view of this Court, the statutory conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act stand satisfied. 13. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant Akram, s/o Ikram, be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 40 of 2024, Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi, under Sections 8, 20, 27A, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act, on 3 2025:UHC:2848 furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 15. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the present bail application and shall not influence the trial. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 17.04.2025 SB 4