2026:UHC:3106 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1130 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0197 of 2025, under Section 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station SIIDCUL, District Haridwar. 3. The case of the prosecution is that applicant was driving Maruti Ciaz Car, having registration No.UK14 C 2611 and the applicant was apprehended by the police party, and from his possession, 21.200 kgs. of Ganja was allegedly recovered. 4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025. It is submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further contended that at the time of his arrest in the present case, he has also been implicated in another case under the N.D.P.S. Act solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 29 of the Act, which, by itself, has limited evidentiary value unless duly corroborated by independent material 2026:UHC:3106 evidence. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the inventory report and arrest memo was purportedly prepared on the spot. It is argued that the inventory report and arrest memo bear the F.I.R./Case Crime number. Hence, at the time of preparation of inventory report and arrest memo, the F.I.R./Case Crime number was not in existence, which renders the prosecution version doubtful. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been held that procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act are material considerations while adjudicating bail applications. It was further held that although Section 37 of the Act prescribes stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail, the Court is nonetheless required to examine whether serious procedural lapses exist which may undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail surety as per the satisfaction of this Court. 5. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, this Court finds that the applicant is in custody since 25.04.2025. Prima facie, there appear arguable procedural irregularities in the prosecution case, inasmuch as, the 2026:UHC:3106 inventory report as well as arrest memeo allegedly prepared prior to registration of the F.I.R. bear the F.I.R./Case Crime number, which creates doubt requiring scrutiny during trial. In view of the law laid down in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif (Supra), such lapses are relevant for considering bail even under the rigours of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, Eshant Teziyaan be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the complainant/ informant will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Alok Mahra, J.) 24.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb739 3398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874463 51E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.24 17:16:27 +05'30'