2026:UHC:74 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2274/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Rijwan Ansari, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.0066 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act, registered at P. S. Lalkuan, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, the Sub- Inspector, along with other police personnel, was deployed for maintenance of law and order and for checking suspicious persons. During the checking of passengers travelling in a Government Roadways bus bearing Registration No. UK06 PA 1371, the police allegedly found the present applicant travelling along with the co-accused. Upon search, 20 vials of Buprenorphine Injection I.P. (0.3 mg/ml) and 20 vials of Pheniramine Maleate (Avil) Injection (10 ml), stated to be narcotic/psychotropic substances, were allegedly recovered from possession of the co-accused persons. Consequently, the applicant along with the co-accused was taken into custody, a recovery memo was prepared on the spot, and thereafter the present case was registered at the concerned police station. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been 2026:UHC:74 falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025 and that the alleged recovery was affected from a Government Roadways bus, which is a public place; therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further argued that, as per the prosecution version, the applicant was arrested on 09.03.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was registered on the next day, i.e., 10.03.2025; however, the F.I.R. number is mentioned in the arrest memo itself, which creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness and fairness of the recovery proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the co-accused, Mohammed Shami and Faijan Malik, who are attributed with a similar role, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, respectively. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. It is also contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time and, as such, continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application; however, he fairly admits that the co-accused persons having a similar role have already been granted bail by this Court and that the applicant has been in custody since 10.03.2025. 9. Having considered the rival 2026:UHC:74 submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 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.) 03.01.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:74