SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:2418 BA1 No. 332 of 2026 Ankit Agarwal ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Ankit Agarwal, aged about 40 years, S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o House No. 55, Rahamkhani, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 420 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused persons and that he has no concern with the contraband allegedly recovered. It is further submitted that co-accused Kasim Ali, proprietor of M/s Mobin Medical Store, used to purchase medicines from the medical store of the present Applicant and used to transfer the amount to the account of Kumar Medicos. It is further submitted that the Applicant holds a valid drug licence for wholesale of medicines and that he has sold only legitimate medicines for which proper bills were issued and payments were duly received. It is contended that such legitimate transactions cannot be linked with any contraband allegedly recovered from the premises of the principal accused. 6. It is also submitted that the wife of the Applicant is suffering from advanced-stage breast cancer and requires continuous care and treatment. The Applicant has no criminal history and undertakes to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 7. Learned State Counsel opposes the Bail Application, contending that during the course of investigation, the co-accused persons, in their statements, disclosed that they had purchased medicines from Kumar Medical Store, owned by the present Applicant, and provided his mobile number. It is further submitted that the co-accused stated that payments were made partly in cash and partly through UPI. It is also submitted that during investigation, conversations between the Applicant and the co-accused were found, and monetary transactions were traced between the accounts of co- accused Kasim Ali and the present Applicant. Thus, according to the prosecution, sufficient material exists against the Applicant under Section 29 read with Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of 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.) 06.04.2026 Shiksha