2025:UHC:2748 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.640 of 2024 Manjeet Singh ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J This is a bail application moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the release of the applicant, Manjeet, in connection with FIR No.76 of 2023, registered at Police Station G.R.P., Haridwar, under Sections 328, 379, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the First Information Report, is that on 16.08.2023, the informant Manjeet Singh was present at Saharanpur Railway Station, where an unidentified individual allegedly administered an intoxicating substance into his cold drink. The informant claims to have lost consciousness thereafter, during which period his belongings, including cash, identity documents, and a mobile phone, were allegedly stolen. 3. The applicant was arrested nearly three weeks later, on 07.09.2023. His bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, was rejected on 11.12.2023. 1 2025:UHC:2748 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 23 days in the arrest remains unexplained by the investigating agency and undermines the credibility of the recovery and the chain of events as projected by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution does not depict any act of administration or theft, and merely places the applicant in the general vicinity of the complainant. 5. It is contended that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has remained in judicial custody since 07.09.2023. The investigation has concluded, and the charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, custodial interrogation is no longer warranted. It is also urged that the trial has yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the application, contending that recovery was made in the presence of public witnesses. The prosecution also relies on CCTV footage allegedly showing the applicant in proximity to the complainant and statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. It is further submitted that the FSL report confirms the presence of Alprazolam (7.5 mg) in the seized substance, which corroborates the version of administration of a stupefying agent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The incident allegedly occurred on 16.08.2023, but the applicant’s arrest was made on 07.09.2023. The case diary does not disclose any plausible explanation for this delay. Though mere delay cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, in cases where the 2 2025:UHC:2748 prosecution's version relies heavily on identification and recovery, the lack of immediacy may affect the probative weight of the material collected. 9. The CCTV footage referred to by the prosecution has not been placed on record for independent examination. The submission that the applicant is seen in proximity to the complainant, absent any overt act suggestive of administration or theft, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis to deny bail at this stage. 10. The statements under Section 161 CrPC, recorded after a lapse of time, are general in nature and lack the promptness and specificity that would lend them more excellent evidentiary value at the pre-trial stage. 11. While the FSL report does confirm the presence of Alprazolam in the recovered substance, the chain of custody and procedural safeguards surrounding seizure and preservation, which are foundational to establishing the reliability of such scientific evidence, will necessarily be tested at trial. At this stage, these materials do not, in the opinion of this Court, displace the applicant’s right to liberty. 12. The applicant has no reported criminal antecedents. He has remained in custody for over six months. The charge sheet has been filed, and there is no material to suggest that the applicant has sought to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Further custodial interrogation is not stated to be necessary. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, reiterated that “the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at his trial… and the deprivation of liberty must be 3 2025:UHC:2748 considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial.” 14. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Supreme Court emphasised that once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, continued incarceration pending trial must be weighed against the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. In view of the foregoing, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. ORDER 16. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Manjeet Singh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following condition:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court as and when required and not misuse the liberty granted to him. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 01.04.2025 NR 4 NITESH RAWAT Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BD D03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Date: 2025.04.16 14:55:32 +05'30'