No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1837 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant – Mohd. Shami, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 221 of 2025, under Section 29 read with Sections 8/ 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station- Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 3. In this case, applicant has been made an accused under Sections 8 and 22 of NDPS Act read with Section 29 of NDPS Act. One Anas was allegedly arrested with an alleged contraband of 2400 capsules of tramadole and dicylomine HCL capsules. Anas admitted before the Police that the alleged recovered contraband belongs to his brother Mohd. Shameem, who has told him to carry this carton and deliver it near a banquet hall where delivery could be affected. Mohd. Shami was arrested on the confessional statement of Anas and Mohd. Shami confessed before the Police that he purchased the alleged contraband from Mohd. Shehbaz. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that applicant could not be made an accused only on the basis of the confessional statement of the another co-accused. Thus, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. To support his case, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 155, 158.1 and 158.2 of the aforesaid judgement are extracted hereinbelow: - “155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. 158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 5. On this basis, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been made an accused only on the confessional statement of the co-accused, who was allegedly arrested with the alleged contraband and no contraband as such has been recovered from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that against the column of ‘grounds of arrest’, only the ‘reasons of arrest’ have been mentioned. Learned counsel would further submit that ‘reasons of arrest’ are different from ‘grounds of arrest’, as has been mentioned in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254. For ready reference, paragraph no.48 of the aforesaid judgement is extracted hereinbelow: - “48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.” 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is further submitted that there was money trail between Mohd. Shami and Mohd. Shehbaz. 7. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the amount of transaction does not match with the cost of the property, as per the FIR. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that applicant has no previous criminal history and no recovery was made from him and he was made the accused only on the confessional statement of the co-accused, without expressing any opinion, as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 19.05.2026 Ujjwal