SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA 2 n d No.4 of 20 26 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Hemant Mahra, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. The present is a second bail application filed by the applicant in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0120 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, wherein the applicant is in judicial custody. 5. From the record, it transpires that the State’s case, in brief, is that on 21.03.2025, acting upon information, the concerned police authorities apprehended the co-accused Shamsher at the spot and effected recovery of 23 boxes containing 3,31,200 capsules of Spasmoproxytil Plus, along with 10,368 additional capsules recovered from certain boxes, making a total alleged recovery of 3,41,568 capsules. An inventory was prepared by the Drug Inspector at the spot, and the applicant was arrested on 22.03.2025 from a separate godown. 6. The investigation revealed that the applicant was in possession of a commercial quantity of the psychotropic substance (Tramadol) and was also involved in its illicit trafficking, leading to invocation of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. It is also evident from the record that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Haridwar vide order dated 15.05.2025, and subsequently, the first bail application before this Court was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2025. Thus, the present application being a second bail application is required to be examined on the touchstone of change in circumstances. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that he is in custody since 22.03.2025; that the charge-sheet has already been submitted; that there has been gross violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act as no samples were drawn before the Magistrate; that further custodial detention is unnecessary; and that he undertakes to cooperate with the trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the allegations are serious; that recovery of contraband of commercial quantity stands established; that statements of recovery witnesses support the State’s case; that the FSL report confirms the presence of Tramadol; that the sampling was later conducted under the supervision of the trial court on 26.05.2025; that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely attracted; and that there is no substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier bail applications. 9. At this juncture, this Court finds that the accusation against the applicant pertains to offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. The record indicates recovery of a huge quantity of contraband from the premises linked to the applicant, and his involvement in the alleged offence is further supported by the statements recorded during investigation and the FSL report, which confirms the presence of Tramadol. 10. So far as the argument regarding prolonged incarceration is concerned, the applicant is in custody since March, 2025, and the trial is pending; however, mere length of custody, in absence of other mitigating circumstances, is not by itself sufficient to dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 11. In cases arising under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, the Court is required to satisfy the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37 of the Act, namely, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the material placed on record at this stage, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to record such satisfaction. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation, the statutory restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances since the previous rejection of bail, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 2 4 .0 2 .20 26 Nitesh/