HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No.49 of 2024 Ishwar Singh …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav and Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. With First Bail Application No.1555 of 2024 Harjaap Singh alias J.P. …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal and Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants Ishwar Singh and Harjaap Singh alias J.P. are in judicial custody in FIR No.36 of 2024, dated 27.01.2024, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. This is 2 the third bail application of the applicant Ishwar Singh his first and second bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2024 and 14.06.2024 respectively while it is the first bail application of the applicant Harjaap Singh alias J.P. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, Ganja in commercial quantity was recovered from a vehicle, driven by the applicant Harjaap Singh alias J.P., in which, the applicant Ishwar Singh was also one of the occupants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that as per FIR, the Inventory Report was prepared at the spot, but it is argued that the entire prosecution case is falsified because the Inventory Report records the FIR number, which was lodged much after that. 6. Learned State counsel would admit that the Inventory Report was prepared at the spot and it bears the FIR number. According to him, as per instructions, 3 after the FIR was lodged, FIR number was recorded in the Inventory Report. 7. When the Inventory Report was prepared at the spot, by that time, the FIR was not lodged. Who recorded the FIR number in the Inventory Report? When was it written? No record of it is placed for perusal of the Court. It doubts the Inventory Report as well as the Recovery Memo. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that these are the cases fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail applications are allowed. 10. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.02.2025 Sanjay