SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3762 BA1 No. 590 of 2026 Amar Jeet Singh ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, 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—Amar Jeet Singh, S/o Shri Satpal Singh, R/o Khusalpur, P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 155 of 2026, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 26.03.2026. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR number already finds mention in the inventory report, which creates a serious discrepancy in the prosecution case. It is also submitted that, as per the prosecution story itself, non-commercial quantity of smack, alleged to be 103.23 grams, was recovered from the possession of the present Applicant and the co-accused during checking. 6. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Learned counsel for the Applicant further contended that the alleged contraband was recovered from two separate polythene packets, however, samples were not drawn and sent from each of the packets separately, which is contrary to the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that there is no motive on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate the present Applicant. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be a discrepancy regarding the mention of the FIR number in the inventory report. Further, the issue relating to sampling from the alleged recovered contraband also requires consideration. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant—Amar Jeet Singh be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 12. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 15.05.2026 Shiksha