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. 640 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mukesh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Mukesh Raj Deopa, S/o Dan Singh is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 30.01.2025 bearing FIR no. 0004 of 2025 registered at P.S. Reethasahib, District Champawat wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that though alleged contraband charas which has been shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial quantity but alleged recovery is nothing but planted one, since, there is a major difference in the quantity of contraband as at the time of search and seizure the contraband which was shown to be recovered was 1.867 kg whereas at the time of remand the quantity was shown as 2.014 kg and specific averment has been made to this effect in para 10 of the bail application but there is no denial in the counter affidavit. 5. A specific question was put on learned Brief Holder what is his response in this regard then he submits that since the order of remand gives reference of quantity of contraband which appears to be higher than the quantity as shown at the time of search and seizure and same is the part of document but he submits this aspect can be looked into at the stage of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was shown to be arrested on 30.01.2025 at 8:50 pm and this time certainly after the sun-set and as per proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act if the arrest is made after sun-set, the warrant is mandatory and if the concerned arresting officer is not able to record the information in writing then in such an eventuality he shall send a copy thereof within 72 hours to his immediate superior official which has not been done in this case. 7. In response to this learned Brief Holder pointed out that the vehicle is in fact commercial vehicle, therefore, Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not applicable rather Section 43 of the Act is applicable. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is enlarged on bail there is less possibility that the will commit any offence while on bail. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is commercial quantity, therefore, in such an eventuality twin condition, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be dealt with. Major difference of the quantity of the alleged recovered contraband as shown to be recovered from the applicant at the time of search and seizure and at the time of remand create so many doubt and why there is difference in quantity of the alleged contraband in this regard a specific averment was made in the bail application but there is no response to this, therefore, this aspect certainly goes to the root of the matter and primarily what this Court observed that if there is major difference of the quantity of the alleged contraband which was recovered from the applicant then there are reasonable ground that the applicant has not committed the offence as alleged. 9. This is a Special Act and the quantity of the recovered contraband is most relevant factor, therefore, if there is such a major difference in the quantity of the alleged contraband and further when there is no specific denial then this aspect can be looked into while considering the instant bail application. 10. As this Court observed, in view of the statement, that there is a major difference in the quantity of the alleged contraband then this Court is primarily of the view that there are reasonable ground that applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. So far as other condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the Act is concerned, admittedly the applicant has no criminal history and there is less possibility that the applicant will repeat crime while on bail. 11. In view of the discussion and observation as made above, and in view of the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since twin condition as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled , therefore, the applicant deserves for bail. 12. Accordingly, without expression any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Mukash Raj Deopa be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. It is made clear that the trial court will proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observations as made above and conclude the same on its own merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.06.2025 Parul