SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:2866 BA1 No. 371 of 2026 Ritik ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant through video conferencing. 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—Ritik, S/o Anop Singh, R/o Village Ibrahimpur, Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 39 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant appearing through video conferencing, 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 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 13.02.2026 and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the Applicant to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. It is also argued that there is no independent public witness to the alleged recovery of contraband (charas), and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the Applicant and that no police custody remand (PCR) of the Applicant was required during investigation. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application and submitted that there is sufficient material evidence on record against the Applicant. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that, at this stage, the grounds urged on behalf of the Applicant for grant of bail appear to be well-founded. The Applicant is in custody since 13.02.2026, has no criminal history, and the alleged procedural lapses, as argued, require consideration during trial. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant—Ritik be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number upon his 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.) 20.04.2026 Shiksha