2026:UHC:1141 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1958/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Amit Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 390 of 2025, registered under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 08.09.2025, during routine checking, the police party apprehended the applicant and allegedly recovered 24 capsules containing Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol HCL and Acetaminophen from his possession. On the basis of the said alleged recovery, the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the applicant on 09.09.2025 at about 03:30 hours. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is contended that although the applicant was allegedly apprehended on 08.09.2025 at about 22:50 hours, the FIR was registered in the early hours of 09.09.2025 at 03:30 hours, which casts doubt upon the prosecution story. It is further submitted 2026:UHC:1141 that no independent public witness was associated with the alleged recovery. It is also argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 50, have not been strictly complied with. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the quantity of the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant is below commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 09.09.2025; that, his bail application has already been rejected by the court below vide order dated 04.10.2025; that, the applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence; that, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application. However, he does not dispute the fact that the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity and that the applicant is in custody since 09.09.2025. It is also not disputed that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the court below on 04.10.2025. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature of accusation, the quantity of the alleged contraband, 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 view that 2026:UHC:1141 the applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 10. 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 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. 11. 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 Mahra, J.) 20.02.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:1141