2026:UHC:3945 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 / 2 3 5 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant–Sabir Husain, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0191 of 2025, registered under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kaliyar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the prosecution case, while the police officials were on routine patrolling duty, the applicant was allegedly apprehended and 21 kilograms of Ganja was shown to have been recovered from two bags allegedly carried by him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession; and that the alleged recovery has been falsely planted by the police authorities. It is further submitted that no independent 2026:UHC:3945 public witness was associated with the alleged recovery proceedings, despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a public place, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. 7. He would further submit that that there has been non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act inasmuch as the applicant was never apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; that, the compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory and requires strict adherence, however, the mandatory safeguards contemplated under the statute have not been followed in the present case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that, according to the prosecution itself, the alleged contraband was recovered in several separate packets of varying weights kept inside two different bags. It is submitted that one bag allegedly contained 11 packets weighing between 1 kg to 2 kg each, whereas the other bag also contained packets of different quantities. Learned counsel submits that all the packets were subsequently sealed together in two plastic bags and produced before the Magistrate concerned for drawing samples for forensic examination. 9. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate allegedly drew two samples of 100 grams each, however, neither the prosecution records nor the sampling proceedings disclose as to from which specific packets the 2026:UHC:3945 samples were drawn; that, the procedure adopted is contrary to Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as the Standing Instructions/Rules governing sampling procedure under the N.D.P.S. Act, which require proper representative sampling from each packet or homogeneous mixing, wherever applicable; that, since the samples were not drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the sanctity and evidentiary value of the alleged recovery itself becomes doubtful. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.07.2025; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; that his bail application has already been rejected by the court below vide order dated 29.07.2025; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the recovery proceedings as well as the sampling procedure were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further submitted that even assuming there are defects in the sampling procedure, the same would be matters of trial and would not, by themselves, vitiate the prosecution case at this stage. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and that he is in judicial custody since 15.07.2025. 12. Having considered the rival 2026:UHC:3945 submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the nature of accusations, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.22 13:57:24 +05'30'