2025:UHC:4117 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 480 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant–Shahid Ali S/o Ali Sher, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 04.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0110 of 2025, Police Station Sidcul, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant along with one Dharmendra have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/60 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; and the alleged contraband smack, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a non- commercial quantity i.e. 101 gram of smack. 5. It is also submitted that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 04.03.2025 and further submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act i.e. Section 42, 43 and 50 of the NDPS Act, have not been properly complied with. 6. It is also contended in the bail application that the applicant is not a previous convict. 7. On the other side, learned State counsel, on written instruction, apprise 2025:UHC:4117 to this Court that the applicant is a habitual offender and earlier to this case, in four cases he has been implicated, out of which, three cases related to the NDPS act i.e. Case Crime No.397 of 2022, Case Crime No.168 of 2024 and Case Crime No.616 of 2024. Apart from this, he submits that there is one other case of Case Crime No.01 of 2025 relating to the Gangster Act. 8. In response to this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all these cases, the applicant has already been granted bail. 9. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the present applicant is repeatedly indulging in similar kind of activities, which is not in the interest of the public at large, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.05.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:4117 2025:UHC:4117