2026:UHC:4140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 Deepak Thakur ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Counsel Presence: Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, and Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Oral) 1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking enlargement on bail in relation to FIR No. 323 of 2015, registered in Police Station, Rudrapur, District – Udham Singh Nagar, U/s 8, 22, 29 of NDPS Act and 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitarelating to commission of illegal trafficking/possession of psychotropic drugs in conspiracy with others by using forged documents for cheating and facilitating the offence. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.2025, while the police party was on routine patrol duty for maintenance of law and order, at about 16:10 hours, a credible secret information was received from a special informer to the effect that cartons containing drug injections and tablets worth crores of rupees were being transported near the National Highway. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted interception and the information was found to be true. During inquiry, it surfaced that the contraband was being transported from Jalandhar to Kashipur and that the payment for the same had allegedly been made by co-accused Ripul Chauhan. It is further alleged that co-accused Ripul Chauhan and Deepak Thakur were engaged in wholesale trade and, for the purpose of procuring a drug 1 First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand 1 2026:UHC:4140 licence, the present applicant had allegedly prepared a forged experience certificate in the name of the co-accused. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is wholly innocent of the offences alleged against him. It is contended that there exists no direct, cogent, or substantive material on record connecting the applicant with the alleged commission of the offence and that the FIR itself has been lodged against an unknown person. 5. It is further submitted that no contraband or incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and the State’s case rests solely upon bald and unsubstantiated allegations. 6. Learned counsel further submits that neither the name of the applicant’s medical store, namely Santosh Pharma, finds mention in the FIR nor is the same reflected upon the cartons allegedly containing the contraband substances. 7. It is further submitted that the applicant is a licensed businessman possessing a valid drug licence, operative till 25.05.2028, along with a valid GSTIN registration, copies whereof have been annexed with the bail application, thereby demonstrating that the applicant is carrying on a legitimate pharmaceutical business. 8. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the investigating agency failed to adhere to the safeguards contemplated under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, including non-communication of the alleged secret information to the superior officers in the manner prescribed under law. 9. Learned counsel further submits that despite the alleged recovery having been effected near a National Highway, no independent public witness has been associated with the search and seizure proceedings, which renders the State’s story doubtful and improbable. 2 First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2 2026:UHC:4140 10. It is further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 3(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that the offences under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS have been mechanically invoked solely with a view to falsely implicate the applicant. 11. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 19.11.2025 and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the investigation against him is not supported by any legally admissible material. 12. Learned counsel further submits that in FIR No. 0477 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 60 and 8 of the NDPS Act and FIR No. 0507 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025 registered under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS, the applicant has already been granted bail by the competent Court and, therefore, on the principle of parity as well, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the present case. 13. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident, having deep roots in society, and there exists no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with State’s evidence, or influencing witnesses in the event he is released on bail. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving offences under the NDPS Act pertaining to illegal trafficking of psychotropic substances of huge commercial value and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 15. It is further submitted by the State that the police had received credible secret information from a special informer regarding transportation of the contraband, which upon interception and checking was found to be true and correct. 16. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the investigating agency has duly complied with the mandatory provisions and 3 First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand 3 2026:UHC:4140 procedural safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act during the course of search, seizure and investigation. 17. It is further submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and has previously been involved in cases of similar nature, which clearly reflects his criminal antecedents and disentitles him from the discretionary relief of bail. 18. It is further submitted that the offence alleged against the applicant involves commercial quantity of psychotropic substances and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail. 19. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed active complicity of the applicant in facilitating the illegal trade by allegedly preparing forged documents for procurement of drug licence in favour of the co-accused, thereby indicating his conscious involvement in the organised illegal activity. 20. It is further submitted that merely because no recovery has been effected from the personal possession of the applicant, the same by itself is not sufficient to exonerate him at this stage in view of the material collected during investigation indicating his involvement in the offence. 21. It is also submitted that the previous criminal cases registered against the applicant, though stated to be pending or in which bail has been granted, nevertheless reflect his repeated involvement in offences of similar nature and disentitle him from claiming equitable discretionary relief. 22. The court finds that the case relies upon mere assumption and doubt and no substantive, direct, or corroborative evidence has been brought on record against the applicant at this stage. 23. This Court further finds that no direct evidentiary material has been placed before it so as to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. 24. The applicant is in judicial custody since 19.11.2025, and the investigation in the matter already stands substantially completed. In 4 First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand 4 2026:UHC:4140 such circumstances, continued incarceration of the applicant, particularly in the absence of strong prima facie incriminating material, would serve no useful purpose. 25. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, at the stage of consideration of bail, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither required nor permissible, and the Court is only expected to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of the material available on record. The guilt of the accused is yet to be conclusively established during trial, and prolonged incarceration before adjudication of guilt would amount to pre-trial punishment. 26. Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the absence of direct incriminating evidence, the lack of substantive corroborative material, the absence of independent witnesses, the inconsistencies in the State’s story, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. ORDER Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Deepak Thakur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:22.05.2026 NR/ 5 First Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 ------------Deepak Thakur Vs. State of Uttarakhand 5