SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:2541 BA1 No. 201 of 2026 Sonupal ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Sonupal, aged about 28 years, S/o Late Shri Ateek Hussain, R/o Telipura, Near Badi Masjid, Ramnagar, District Nainital. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 619 of 2025, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. Heard Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State. The record has been perused. 5. The primary grounds for consideration of bail, as advanced on behalf of the Applicant, are that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in jail since 11.12.2025. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with, inasmuch as the sampling of the contraband and preparation of the inventory report have not been carried out in accordance with law and prior to the lodging of the FIR, which is procedurally improper, as the FIR is ordinarily registered after the recovery and seizure proceedings. Furthermore, the alleged contraband recovered from the Applicant is 61.73 grams of smack, which is below commercial quantity. 6. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds for grant of bail are made out. Firstly, the mention of the FIR number on documents such as the arrest memo, which are stated to have been prepared prior to the lodging of the FIR, prima facie indicates a procedural irregularity. Secondly, the alleged contraband, namely smack, recovered from the Applicant is below commercial quantity. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, sufficient grounds exist for grant of bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 08.04.2026 Shiksha