SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3228 BA1 No. 565 of 2026 Raj Sagar ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Raj Sagar S/o Shri Bharat Sagar, R/o Nai Basti Gular Ghatti, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 81 of 2026, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. Heard Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits, as a primary ground for consideration of bail, that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and is in judicial custody since 23.03.2026. It is further submitted that the Applicant was never informed of the grounds of arrest by the arresting officer, which, according to learned counsel, is in violation of Section 47 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, and that no grounds of arrest have been reflected in the arrest memo. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery of 311 grams of charas from the possession of the Applicant is below commercial quantity. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At this stage, without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court finds that the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours applicable in cases involving commercial quantity do not prima facie operate in the same manner. Considering the nature of allegations, the quantity allegedly recovered, the submissions regarding procedural irregularity in arrest, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds are made out for grant of bail at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.04.2026 Shiksha