I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2565 OF 2024 Dalip Kumar ...Applicant (In Jail)

Versus State of Uttarakhand ….....Respondent Presence Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J ( Oral)

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Dalip Kumar, male, aged 28 years S/o Late Chote Lal, R/o House No. 25, Ambedkar Colony, D.L. Road, PS Raipur, District Dehradun who seeks bail in connection with Case Crime No. 416 of 2023, under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun.

2. The Respondent-State's case in brief is that on September 29, 2023, at around 20:50 hours, SI Raman Bisht, along with his police team, while patrolling from Nalapani Chowk towards Nanurkheda, apprehended the applicant near an empty plot approximately 200 meters before a gas agency. A search of the applicant's scooty (bearing registration number UK07 FF 3760) allegedly resulted in the recovery of 840 capsules of Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol HCL &

Acetaminophen (Pyeevon Spas Plus) from its trunk.

3. Each capsule reportedly contained Dicyclomine Hydrochloride IP 10 mg, Tramadol Hydrochloride IP 50 mg, and Acetaminophen IP 325 mg.

4. Based on this recovery, FIR No. 416 of 2023 was registered against the applicant under Sections 8/22/60 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. The total weight of the recovered substance was approximately 504 grams (calculated as 840 capsules ×

0.60 grams per capsule).

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, and for the State, Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder. The Court has also perused the material available on record.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that several procedural irregularities and legal infirmities exist in the respondent-

State’s case.

8. It is argued that the sequence number of the FIR is mentioned in the arrest memo itself; however, such a detail could only have been procedurally available at a later stage, that is, after the lodging and registration of the FIR. This anomaly creates serious doubt over the genuineness of the respondent-State’s story.

9. The applicant's counsel has emphatically pointed out that despite the alleged recovery taking place in a populated area, there is no independent witness to the search and seizure.

10. Further, it is argued that the investigating authorities did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the NDPS Act.

11. On behalf of the applicant, it is also highlighted that samples were not taken from each of the 35 strips (containing 24 capsules each) but were randomly collected, which calls into question the representative nature of the samples analysed.

12. It has been further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is a law-abiding citizen who has been languishing in jail since September 29, 2023.

13. Notably, after the charge sheet was filed on March 29, 2024, and charges were framed on April 25, 2024, the trial has progressed at a sluggish pace. Despite the lapse of more than eight months since charges were framed, only partial testimony of one State’s witness has been recorded.

14. It is also highlighted that the trial court rejected the applicant's bail application on December 5, 2024, without adequately considering the legal infirmities the applicant pointed out.

15. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing at the outset that all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were duly complied with during the applicant's search, seizure, and arrest.

16. As regards the absence of independent witnesses, it has been submitted that efforts were made to secure the presence of passersby