Aaditya Vs State of Uttarakhand

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant, Aditya, seeking bail in connection with Case Crime No. 117/2024, registered at Police Station Muni Ki Reti, District Haridwar, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶15

The prosecution's case, as per the First Information Report and other records, alleges that on October 4, 2024, Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar, along with other police personnel, was on duty near Veterinary Hospital Tiraha Dhalwala when they spotted two persons standing with a motorcycle.

¶16

On seeing the police, they allegedly attempted to flee towards Bhadrakali. The police apprehended them along with the motorcycle bearing registration number UK-08 AY-9606.

¶17

During questioning, the rider disclosed his identity as Shubham alias Buddhu, while the pillion rider identified himself as Aditya, the present applicant.

¶18

Page 1

¶19

2025:UHC:2792

¶20

According to the prosecution, Aditya informed the police about possessing charas. Subsequently, Dr. Jagdish Joshi, a Gazetted Officer from the Primary Health Centre, Fakot, was called to the scene. A search was conducted in his presence, allegedly leading to the recovery of 1.168 kg of charas from co-accused Shubham and 1.860 kg of charas from the applicant. The substances were seized, weighed, and samples were drawn and sent for forensic examination. The FSL report confirmed the presence of active psychoactive constituents of cannabis in the seized samples.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bilal Ahmad, and the learned Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Rakesh Negi. Perused the record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It was contended that the recovery is fabricated and that no independent witness was associated with the recovery process, allegedly occurring in a public place. Additionally, there was no videography conducted. The applicant is 21 years of age, a permanent resident of Haridwar, and has no prior criminal history under the NDPS Act. He has been in custody since October 4, 2024.

¶23

Counsel further submitted that there were procedural lapses under Sections 42, 43, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act, impacting the legality of the recovery.

¶24

Learned Brief Holder for the respondent-State opposed the bail, submitting that a commercial quantity of charas was recovered from the applicant, thus invoking the stringent conditions under the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that efforts were made to associate independent witnesses, but none came forward, as noted in the recovery memo. The FSL report confirms the substance as charas. Another case,

¶25

Page 2

¶26

2025:UHC:2792

¶27

Crime No. 787/24 under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the BNS, is also registered against the applicant at Police Station Manglour.

¶28

This Court observes that the applicant has been in custody for approximately six months. Such incarceration must be considered in light of the presumption of innocence. The recovery of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is serious and normally militates against bail. However, certain factors merit consideration.

¶29

Firstly, no independent witness was involved, despite the public location of the alleged recovery. Secondly, the FSL report confirms psychoactive constituents but does not provide a quantitative analysis to determine classification. Thirdly, the applicant is young and has no prior NDPS conviction. Fourthly, alleged procedural irregularities under Sections 42, 43, 50, and 52 impact the evidentiary value. Moreover, the applicant's alleged admission occurred before the arrival of the Gazetted Officer, raising doubts under Section 50.

¶30

The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed, reducing the risk of tampering. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, held that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Considerations such as severity, flight risk, tampering, and repeated offence must be balanced.

¶31

This Court is mindful of the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, in light of the applicant’s age, lack of antecedents, duration of custody, procedural concerns, and completion of investigation, this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶32

In the present case, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the young age of the applicant, the fact that the

¶33

Page 3

¶34

2025:UHC:2792

¶35

investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The applicant, Aditya S/O Mahipal Singh , R/O Village Khalsa , P.S. & Tahsil Roorkee, Manglour, District Haridwar; shall be released on bail in Case Crime No. 117/2024, registered at Police Station Muni Ki Reti, District Haridwar, under Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶37