Dismissed¶16

Mohan Das Alias Mohan Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

NDPS Act, 1985 – Sections 8/21

Uttarakhand HC4 Nov 2025WPCRL/1375/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital; Writ Petition Criminal No. 1375 of 2025; decided 04 November 2025 by Pankaj Purohit, J.; NDPS Act Sections 8/21; FIR No.0547 of 2025 dated 10.08.2025, PS Manglour, District Haridwar; smack 6.24 gm recovered from co-accused Babloo who implicated petitioner Mohan Das @ Mohan Lal as supplier; prayer to quash FIR and restrain arrest refused; prima facie offence disclosed; petition dismissed in-limine.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the first information report, the court found that the petitioner allegedly supplied 6.24 gram of Smack to co-accused Babloo; the allegations are very serious and disclose commission of offence, and since prima facie an offence is made out against the petitioner, no interference is warranted. ¶16

Mohan Das Alias Mohan Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:9722

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Criminal No. 1375 of 2025

¶4

04 November, 2025

¶5

Mohan Das Alias Mohan Lal --Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents

¶8

Presence :-

¶9

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶10

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the impugned FIR No.0547 of 2025 dated 10.08.2025, under Sections 8/21of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered with Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar and further for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the FIR version, the contraband i.e. Smack was recovered from the possession of co-accused namely Babloo and the quantity of the said contraband was 6.24 gm and the co-accused Babloo has named the petitioner and it is only on that premise, the petitioner is also wanted in connection with the aforesaid first information report.

¶13

¶14

2025:UHC:9722

¶15

Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that the co-accused Babloo, from whom the recovery has been made, has disclosed in his statement that he got the said contraband from the petitioner-Mohan Das @ Mohan Lal, therefore, his name was also implicated in the impugned FIR.

¶16

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the first information report, it transpires that the petitioner supplied 6.24 gram of Smack to the coaccused Babloo, hence, allegations made in the first information report are very serious and discloses commission of offence. Since, prima-facie , the offence is made out against the petitioner, no interference is warranted by this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine .

¶17

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.11.2025

¶19

¶20

Mohan Das Alias Mohan Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das Alias Mohan Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Saleem Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kumari Sharish Ali Vs Zeenat Zahan

Ali Sher Vs Prescribed Authority National Highway Authority of India

Piyush Verma(Minor) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gurbaj Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dr Yogi Aeron Vs Neeta Thapa