Allowed¶11

Shamsher Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC11 Jun 2025BA1/2234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail — Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act; charas 2.30 Kg recovery from backpack on 18.01.2024; FIR/Case Crime No. 2 of 2024, P.S.- Mori, District Uttarkashi; chain-of-custody points: Malkhana register missing general diary entry of 18.01.2024 (first entry 19.01.2024); FSL Dehradun report dated 02.05.2024 showing single parcel with 'J.M. Barkot' seal versus sample drawn by Judicial Magistrate, Purola; remaining contraband 1834.5 gms; bail granted on personal bond with two reliable sureties; Single Judge: Alok Mahra, J.; BA1 No. 2234 of 2024; decided 11.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ¶11

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BA1 No. 2234 of 2024
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for
the applicant.

2.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3.
The applicant – Shamsher Ali, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case
Crime No. 2 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of
N.D.P.S. Act registered at P.S.- Mori, District
Uttarkashi, has sought his release on bail.
4.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
5.
In this case, applicant was apprehended
on 18.01.2024 at about 11:35 p.m. and 2.30
Kg. of_charas_was recovered from backpack.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
submits that whether any inventory was
prepared or not, is not clear from the perusal
of the FIR. FIR was lodged on 18.01.2024 at
13:10 hours. It is further submitted general
diary
entry
reveals
that
all
the
items
recovered from the accused were deposited in
the_Malkhana_and the time of entering the
general diary entry is 12:59 p.m. Learned
counsel has also drawn attention of this Court
to the_Malkhana_register, wherein, the general
diary entry of 18.01.2024 is not mentioned
and for the first time, entry of 19.01.2024 is
entered.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
submits that the contraband was placed
before the Judicial Magistrate, Purola on

19.01.2024, who after drawing 100-100 gms of sample from the sealed contraband, had
again sealed the contraband and had sent the same to be deposited in the_Malkhana._Entry in the_Malkhana_register as well as in the order of the Judicial Magistrate would reveal that the remaining contraband, after sending 100-100 gms sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, comes to 1834.5 gms.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court to the Forensic Science Laboratory examination report dated 02.05.2024. Perusal of the FSL examination report would reveal that only one parcel of sample was received by the FSL for examination and that too which was sent by J.M., Barkot. This is very serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. How the sample which
was drawn by the order of the Judicial
Magistrate, Purola and sent to the FSL on 19.01.2024, was received by the FSL with the seal and impression of J.M. Barkot. Thus, it clearly shows that the entire sample received by the FSL for examination, was never the
same, as sent by the Judicial Magistrate, Purola. On the basis of the above contentions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the case.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has
further drawn attention of this Court to the
examination report of FSL, Dehradun dated
02.05.2024. Clause 2 of the said report
mentions the name of Forwarding Authority as
‘Judicial Magistrate Purola Uttarkashi’, while
clause 7 which pertains to details of
parcel/exhibits received reveals that only one
cloth parcel sealed with ‘J.M. Barkot’
impression was received weighing119.0gm,

19.01.2024, who after drawing 100-100 gms
of sample from the sealed contraband, had

again sealed the contraband and had sent the
same to be deposited in the_Malkhana._Entry
in the_Malkhana_register as well as in the
order of the Judicial Magistrate would reveal
that the remaining contraband, after sending
100-100 gms sample to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, comes to 1834.5 gms.

8.
Learned counsel for the applicant has
further drawn the attention of this Court to
the Forensic Science Laboratory examination
report dated 02.05.2024. Perusal of the FSL
examination report would reveal that only one
parcel of sample was received by the FSL for
examination and that too which was sent by
J.M., Barkot. This is very serious lapse on the
part of the prosecution. How the sample which

was drawn by the order of the Judicial

Magistrate, Purola and sent to the FSL on
19.01.2024, was received by the FSL with the
seal and impression of J.M. Barkot. Thus, it
clearly shows that the entire sample received
by the FSL for examination, was never the

same, as sent by the Judicial Magistrate,
Purola. On the basis of the above contentions,
learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant has been falsely implicated in

the case.

9.
Learned counsel for the applicant has

further drawn attention of this Court to the

examination report of FSL, Dehradun dated

02.05.2024. Clause 2 of the said report

mentions the name of Forwarding Authority as

‘Judicial Magistrate Purola Uttarkashi’, while

clause
7
which
pertains
to
details
of

parcel/exhibits received reveals that only one

cloth
parcel
sealed
with
‘J.M.
Barkot’

impression was received weighing119.0gm,

with packing and net weight 98.0 gm, without packing.
10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra J.) 11.06.2025 Ujjwal

with packing and net weight 98.0 gm, without
packing.

10. Having
considered
the
submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for
bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.

11. Accordingly,
the
bail
application
is
allowed.

12. Let the applicant be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties each of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Alok Mahra J.)
11.06.2025
Ujjwal

Shamsher Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsher Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Malhotra Vs Smt. Mridu Hans

Smt. Nilesh Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akash Alias Bunty Vs State of Uttarakhand

Surendra Singh Alias Chhinder Singh Vs Krishan Lal Arora

Sunny Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Archana Baral Vs State of Uttarakhand