21. BA] SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:3010 BA1 No.320 of 2026 Matlub Vs. State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Mayank Joshi, learned legal aid counsel for the Applicant appearing through V.C. 2. Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned AGA and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present bail application is moved by the applicant, who is in judicial custody, in connection with FIR No.260 of 2025 under Section 8 & 22 of the N.D.P.S Act, registered at P.S. Banbhulpura, District Nainital. 4. According to the FIR on 16.11.2025 Sub Inspector Jagveer Singh alongwith police personnel was on patrolling duty. During checking police team apprehended the accused applicant Matlub and recovered one polythene, containing 18 strips having 180 Alprazolam Tablets IP 0.5 mg and 03 strips containing 24 capsules of Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol HCL and Acetaminophen. When the accused was asked to show the valid licence, he failed to produce the same. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the contraband recovered is 18 strips having 180 Alprazolam Tables IP 0.5 mg and total quantity of the same is 90 gram whereas the commercial quantity as mentioned under the NDPS Act is 100 grams and more. It is further submitted that 03 strips containing 24 capsules of Dicyclomine HCL Tramadol HCL and Acetaminophen is also below the commercial quantity as the commercial quantity of the Tramadol as defined under the NDPS Act is 250 grams. He further submits that there is no independent witness of the recovery; he has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 16.11.2025. 6. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application and submits that all the provisions of NDPS Act have been followed and the contraband recovered is more than the small quantity. He submits that there is FSL report and the same is positive. He submits that bail application of the applicant be rejected. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks that the present case is fit to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Matlub be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 23.04.2026 Arti