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. 772 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shakib Husain, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Shakib Husain learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement as given in para 13 of the bail application is a typographical mistake. 4. It appears that he is giving misleading statement. 6. Earlier when the case was called, Ms. Sukbhnai Singh, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Shakib Hussain argued this bail application and submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant that is smack is below the commercial quantity. She further submits that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and there is no independent witness, however, she has pointed out that she herself verified the fact and then came to know that the applicant has a criminal history of three cases out of which two cases relates to the NDPS Act wherein the applicant was granted bail and the order of which is also placed before this Court. Apart from this, she submits that another case which pertains to the Arms Act applicant has also been granted bail. 7. On plain reading of the statement as given in para 13 it is clear that specific statement has been made that the applicant has not committed any crime nor has any criminal history. 8. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder on the basis of written instructions also pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history of three cases out of which two cases relates to the NDPS Act. 9. Since, false statement has been given in para 13 that the present applicant has no criminal history though as a matter of fact the applicant has criminal history of three cases out of which two cases relates to the NDPS Act, in such an eventuality since a false statement has been given in the bail application, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.05.2025 Parul