2026:UHC:3399 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.443 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal and Mr. Amit Tyagi, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Vipul Painuli, 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.269 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. 3. Applicant was apprehended alongwith other co-accused and, as per the prosecution story, 2.510 kgs. of Charas was allegedly recovered from a bag, which was lying beneath the seat, on which the applicant was seated. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, has no criminal antecedents, and has been in judicial custody since 30.08.2025. It is contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the inventory report was purportedly prepared on the spot. It is further argued that the inventory report bears the F.I.R./Case Crime number. Hence, at the time of preparation of inventory report, the F.I.R./Case Crime number was not in existence, which renders the prosecution version doubtful. Learned 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. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery was not effected from the conscious possession of the applicant, but was purportedly made from beneath the seat on which he was sitting. It is contended that the applicant 2026:UHC:3399 was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle in question and, therefore, cannot be attributed with conscious possession of the recovered contraband. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Shailesh Kumar Yadav, who is alleged to have been driving the vehicle, is a person suffering from approximately 88% disability and, as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer, is not fit to drive a manual vehicle, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution story and the alleged recovery. Learned counsel further submits that the said co- accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in BA1 No. 1847 of 2025 vide order dated 16.03.2026. On the ground of parity, it is argued that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. It is lastly submitted that the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and shall furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of Court concerned. 6. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged recovery of 2.510 kgs. of Charas was not effected from the conscious possession of the applicant, but was allegedly made from a bag lying beneath the seat on which he was sitting. The applicant was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, thus prima facie weakening the element of conscious possession. Further, the discrepancy regarding the preparation of the inventory report, which allegedly bears the F.I.R./Case Crime number despite being prepared on the spot, creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution version. Such procedural irregularities assume significance in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Additionally, the co- accused, who is alleged to have been driving the vehicle, has already been granted bail by this Court, and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing, entitling him to the benefit of parity. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 30.08.2025. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Deepak Bahadur Aedi be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two local sureties, each in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, 2026:UHC:3399 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.) 05.05.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.05 17:46:24 +05'30'