2026:UHC:3629 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 5 5 8 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Harish Singh Matiyani, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 127 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 20.07.2025, during routine checking, the police party allegedly apprehended the applicant along with the co-accused and recovered 1528 grams of charas from a bag allegedly being carried by the applicant on his back. On the basis of the said alleged recovery, the present F.I.R. came to be lodged against the applicant on the same day. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with in their true letter and spirit. It is further contended that the safeguards contemplated under Section 2026:UHC:3629 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been violated. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged recovery is stated to be a chance recovery, yet no independent public witness was associated at the time of the alleged search and seizure, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful and unreliable. 7. He would further submit that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 21.07.2025; that, there exists a material discrepancy in the prosecution case inasmuch as the arrest memo, which is alleged to have been prepared at the spot prior to registration of the F.I.R., already bears the number of the F.I.R., whereas the F.I.R. itself is stated to have been registered subsequently after a delay of about five hours. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the presence of the F.I.R. number on the arrest memo allegedly prepared prior to registration of the F.I.R. creates a serious doubt in the prosecution story and casts substantial doubt upon the genuineness of the alleged recovery and the fairness of the investigation. He would further submit that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail 2026:UHC:3629 application and submit that the recovery has been effected strictly in accordance with law and that all mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been duly complied with. However, on instructions, learned State counsel fairly conceded that no corresponding G.D. entry or plausible explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution with regard to the mention of the F.I.R. number in the arrest memo allegedly prepared prior to registration of the F.I.R. He also does not dispute that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and upon consideration of the rival submissions as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the discrepancy relating to the mention of the F.I.R. number in the arrest memo, which is stated to have been prepared prior to registration of the F.I.R., creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution version, the fairness of the investigation, and the genuineness of the alleged recovery. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. 12. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. (b) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the 2026:UHC:3629 court. (c) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation. (d) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses, either directly or indirectly and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. (e) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the court or to the investigating agency, to preclude risk of absconding. 13. The bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled in the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or if the applicant is found to have misused the liberty granted to him. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 1 2 .0 5 .2 0 2 6 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e 430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6 8911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.13 18:41:00 +05'30'