Allowed

Rajeev Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Aug 2025BA1/2562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 8/20/60 NDPS Act for recovery of alleged contraband. Court noted absence of independent witnesses, non-compliance concerns under Section 50, and a discrepancy where the inventory report prepared on 05.10.2024 mentioned an FIR registered on 07.10.2024, with no G.D. entry recording the FIR number.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance, no tampering with case facts, and no t

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1 No. 2562 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Krishan Kumar Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant, seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 38 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Bhatraujkhan, District Almora. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no independent witness to corroborate the recovery of the alleged contraband; that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that the compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been made in letter and spirit and that the inventory report was prepared on the spot on 05.10.2024, in which, FIR No. 38 of 2024 was mentioned, whereas the FIR was registered on 07.10.2024 at 16:05 hours. 4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The same reads as under:- “37. Offences to be cognizable and non bailable— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)—

SL.
No.

Date

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

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1 No. 2562 of 2024
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Krishan Kumar Verma, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
2.
This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant, seeking regular
bail in F.I.R. No. 38 of 2024, under
Sections
8/20/60
of
N.D.P.S.
Act,
registered at Police Station Bhatraujkhan,
District Almora.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that there is no independent
witness to corroborate the recovery of the
alleged contraband; that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in the case; that
the compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act
has not been made in letter and spirit and
that the inventory report was prepared on
the spot on 05.10.2024, in which, FIR No.
38 of 2024 was mentioned, whereas the
FIR was registered on 07.10.2024 at
16:05 hours.
4.
Learned State Counsel, on the other
hand, has vehemently opposed the bail
application.
5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to
reproduce Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The
same reads as under:-
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non
bailable—
(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974)—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”
7. Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a very
rigorous provision. As per Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, the conditions which the
Court has to examine are that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
8. In response to this, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that no doubt, as
per Section 37 of the Act, bail in such
cases may not be granted, unless the
Court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. But, denial of bail does not give
unfettered liberty to the prosecution to
keep a person in custody without
conducting a trial.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant is in jail
since 05.10.024 and, it is apparent that no
independent witness of recoveryis there

(a) every offence punishable under this Act
shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable
for offences under section 19 or section 24 or
section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified
in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition
to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law
for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”

7. Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a very

rigorous provision. As per Section 37 of

the NDPS Act, the conditions which the

Court has to examine are that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.

8. In response to this, learned counsel for

the applicant submits that no doubt, as

per Section 37 of the Act, bail in such

cases may not be granted, unless the

Court is satisfied that there are reasonable

grounds for believing that the accused is

not guilty of such offence and that he is

not likely to commit any offence while on

bail. But, denial of bail does not give

unfettered liberty to the prosecution to

keep
a
person
in
custody
without

conducting a trial.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant

further submits that the applicant is in jail

since 05.10.024 and, it is apparent that no

independent witness of recoveryis there

and moreover, the inventory of recovery,
which was prepared on the spot on
05.10.2024, FIR number is mentioned in
it, whereas, it is admitted fact that FIR was registered on 07.10.024.
Furthermore, on perusal of the G.D. entry, it is revealed that no entry of entering the FIR number in the inventory report is mentioned. Thus, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
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 – Rajeev Rawat 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, subject the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court.
13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Alok Mahra, J.) 07.08.2025 Ujjwal

and moreover, the inventory of recovery,

which was prepared on the spot on

05.10.2024, FIR number is mentioned in

it, whereas, it is admitted fact that FIR
was
registered
on
07.10.024.

Furthermore, on perusal of the G.D. entry,
it is revealed that no entry of entering the
FIR number in the inventory report is
mentioned. Thus, the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail.

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 – Rajeev Rawat 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, subject
the following conditions:-

i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court
regularly,
and,
he
will
not
seek
any
unnecessary adjournment.
ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of this
case.
iii) The applicant shall not leave India without
any prior permission of the trial Court.

13. It is clarified that if the applicant
misuses or violates any of the conditions,
imposed upon him, the prosecution will be
free to move the court for cancellation of
bail.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
07.08.2025
Ujjwal

Rajeev Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prince Tyagi Alias Abhinav Tyagi juvenile Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs Ruchi Babbar

Paras Kumar Vs Smt. Rupali Sharma

Mohd. Kamal (minor) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pawan Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amarjeet Vs State of Uttarakhand