Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2449

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Firoj Mohammad Yusuf – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BA No.1066 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav Singh
For the Respondents: Himanshu Sain

The court granted bail based on the applicant's clean criminal record and procedural violations regarding FIR initiation under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Headnote:(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 32 - Criminal proceedings - Regular bail application - Applicant has been in detention since the FIR, lacks a criminal history, and there are procedural concerns regarding the lodging of the FIR under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Court underscores that initiation of proceedings must follow due process as stated in the Act. (Paras 4, 9-10)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail - The applicant is entitled to bail due to lack of criminal history and pending investigation. Conditions imposed for release include cooperation with ongoing investigations. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is implicated in an FIR for several offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He has been detained since May 2025 without a prior criminal history.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant deserves bail under stringent conditions, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act during proceedings.

Issues: The primary issues include adherence to statutory procedures for filing an FIR under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the applicant's eligibility for bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that the applicant's lack of a criminal history and ongoing investigation justify bail under imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent further criminal activity.

Result: Bail application allowed.

SL. N o .	D a t e	Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s	COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
			1 BA 1 N o .1 0 6 6 o f 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. . Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ansari S/o 3. Present applicant–Firoj Mohammad Yusuf is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 27.05.2025 bearing FIR No.0274 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 331 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940. Learned counsel for the applicant 4. submits that the offences, as alleged, are in fact cognizable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940 since as per Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940, the Drug Inspector should made a complaint for the offences as alleged by filing a complaint and initiation of the proceeding by way of the lodging the FIR is contrary to the procedure as laid down under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940. He also submits that the present 5. applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2025 having no previous criminal history and there is no element for constituting the offences as alleged. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Officer who lodged the FIR completely by-pass the mandatory provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940. 7. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State denied the submission by

			submitting that large number of forged wrappers were recovered which was in the name of another company i.e. in the name of Sharif Herbal and that is the reason that the in respect of the FIR has been registered penal provisions of the Indian Penal Provision. Learned State counsel also fairly 8. submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history, however, he has apprised to this Court that the investigation is still going on and the charge-sheet has not been filed. After hearing the arguments as 9. advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration that the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940, which contains the provisions for taking cognizance in respect of the offences covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940, and further taking into consideration that the applicant has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail, but some stringent conditions should also be imposed. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant, namely, Firoj Ansari, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 12. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall cooperate with the part pending investigation and will not indulge in any criminal activities in future, failing which, the prosecution is free to move an application for cancelling the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.07.2025 R.Bisht

submitting that large number of forged wrappers were recovered which was in the name of another company i.e. in the name of Sharif Herbal and that is the reason that the in respect of the FIR has been registered penal provisions of the Indian Penal Provision. Learned State counsel also fairly 8. submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history, however, he has apprised to this Court that the investigation is still going on and the charge-sheet has not been filed. After hearing the arguments as 9. advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration that the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940, which contains the provisions for taking cognizance in respect of the offences covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940, and further taking into consideration that the applicant has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail, but some stringent conditions should also be imposed. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant, namely, Firoj Ansari, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 12. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall cooperate with the part pending investigation and will not indulge in any criminal activities in future, failing which, the prosecution is free to move an application for cancelling the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.07.2025 R.Bisht

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2449

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDRakesh Thapliyal, JFiroj Mohammad Yusuf – AppellantVersusState – RespondentBA No.1066 of 2025

The court granted bail based on the applicant's clean criminal record and procedural violations regarding FIR initiation under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Firoj Mohammad Yusuf – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BA No.1066 of 2025