UKHC010146902026 2026:UHC:7737 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1434/2026 Rajat Kumar --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj and Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal and Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Rajat Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0074 of 2026, under Sections 8/20 and 60 of the of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. came to be registered on 30.06.2026 against the present applicant alleging that, during routine checking, the police team intercepted the applicant along with the co-accused. It is alleged that the co-accused was carrying a black backpack and, upon search thereof, a black, rod-shaped substance wrapped in a black polythene bag was recovered, which, UKHC010146902026 2026:UHC:7737 according to the prosecution, was found to be charas weighing 940 grams. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the applicant had merely accompanied the co-accused to visit a local fair/viewpoint and was proceeding towards Neelkanth; that, during routine checking, the motorcycle on which the applicant and the co- accused were travelling was intercepted by the police personnel, whereafter a minor altercation took place between them; that, since the co-accused was unable to produce the requisite documents of the vehicle at the spot, it is alleged that, owing to the said altercation, the applicant has subsequently been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the alleged recovery is stated to have been made at a public place, yet no independent public witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings or examined by the prosecution to corroborate the alleged recovery. She would further submit that the prosecution case is also alleged to suffer from non-compliance with the safeguards contemplated under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of 940 grams of charas is below the notified commercial quantity and, consequently, the stringent conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents; that, even according to the prosecution, the alleged contraband was in the form of sticks; however, neither the number of UKHC010146902026 2026:UHC:7737 such sticks has been specified nor has their individual or aggregate description been properly reflected in the recovery proceedings, therefore, the aforesaid discrepancy casts doubt upon the manner in which the alleged recovery was effected and documented. 9. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 30.06.2026; that, the investigation has substantially progressed; and that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future; that, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the absence of previous criminal antecedents, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the prayer for bail. However, on the basis of instructions, he would submit that, having regard to the quantity of the alleged contraband, the alleged recovery being below the notified commercial quantity, the rigours and restrictions contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in the present case. 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged recovery of 940 grams of charas is below the notified commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents; and he has remained in judicial custody since 30.06.2026. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. UKHC010146902026 2026:UHC:7737 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case, upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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. 13. 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.) 25.08.2026 Mamta