2025:UHC:2386 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 28th March, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1509 of 2024 Manoj Singh Rawat …Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant-Manoj Singh Rawat, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.509 of 2023, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, under Sections 8 & 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act). 2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. As per the prosecution story an FIR was lodged by the complainant on 25.11.2023 alleging therein that on 24.11.2023, the complainant along with other police officials were involved in keeping peace and security, meanwhile they saw a person coming towards them, 1 2025:UHC:2386 carrying a bag on his shoulders, who on seeing police personnel turned and started running towards jungle. On suspicion police personnel caught him immediately; upon asking the reason for running away, the applicant could not answer and confessed his guilt. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the contraband seized in the present case is charas and if it is in the shape of sticks then it is important that sampling must be done from each portion otherwise the portions, which are left out for sampling, may not be included in the final result relating to the weight of the contraband in the present case, which is charas. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision taken by the Coordinate Bench in BA1 No.171 of 2023 Awtar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand. Para 8 & 9 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. The Inventory Report also doubts the prosecution case because it records the case crime number. If it was subsequently added, who added it? 9. In addition to it, the sample has been taken randomly and not from each of the strips. How can it be said the representative sample? 5. Apart from the above contention, learned counsel for the applicant stressed upon a fact that as per the prosecution case after the search and seizure the applicant/accused was arrested on the spot and arrest memo was also prepared thereafter but surprisingly before the applicant/accused was taken to the concerned police 2025:UHC:2386 station, the arrest memo, which was prepared on the spot when applicant was arrested, there is a mention of FIR. 6. It is stated that how can an FIR be registered before arrest, search and seizure of the contraband. This fault in the present matter regarding search, seizure and arrest vitiates the very mandatory procedure that have been provided in the N.D.P.A. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 and he may be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the bail application stating therein that compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has been complied with and if there are any discrepancies in the inventory report that will not weight as an advantage in favour of the applicant for consideration of the bail. The contraband, so seized from the applicant, is more than a commercial quantity and it is serious offence, therefore bail should not be granted. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record at the outset, I find sufficient grounds to grant the bail. Firstly, at the outset because case crime number has been mentioned in the arrest memo i.e. Ex.-P2 Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit, which as per procedure can only be mentioned after the first information report is lodged. The date and time of arrest as recorded in Ex.P2 is on 24.11.2023 at 23:30, place of incident Rampur Road near Nanaksar Gurudwara and as per the FIR the information received at 2025:UHC:2386 the police station is recorded on 25.11.20223 at 02:59 and the time of occurrence is noted as 24.11.2023. Therefore, this cannot be termed as merely a procedural or typographical error but may otherwise caste a strong doubt in the present matter. This alone is sufficient for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Manoj Singh Rawat be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 28.03.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.04.05 15:31:13 +05'30'