Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 1530/ 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G.

for the State.

3. Applicant- Rajendra Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhataruj Khan, District Almora has sought his release on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. As per the prosecution case, on 27.03.2025, an F.I.R. was registered against the present applicant alleging that during routine checking, the police team apprehended the applicant and recovered

24.880 kg of ganja from his possession.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that, according to the prosecution, the inventory report and arrest memo were prepared at the spot and only thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. However, all documents bear the F.I.R. number. Thus, it is submitted that this inconsistency casts serious doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution case and indicates that the documents were not prepared in the manner alleged.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that the inventory report has not been prepared in the manner prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (in short “the Rules, 2022”). It is urged that the inventory report is not prepared in the prescribed form and does not bear proper certification as mandated under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Hence, the legal procedures were not properly or fully followed.

8. Learned counsel would also submit that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is in judicial custody since 28.03.2025. It is stated that though the applicant had moved a bail application before the learned court below, the same was rejected on 01.05.2025. It is further contended that there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence or misuse of liberty if the applicant is enlarged on bail. He would further submit that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

9. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently opposes the bail application, however, fairly admits that the inventory report, arrest memo, and other documents prepared at the spot bear the F.I.R. number. The State counsel also admits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 28.03.2025 and that his bail application was rejected by the court below on 01.05.2025. He would further admit that the co-accused Gaurav Saini, who is attributed with an identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025.

10. Having considered the submissions made by both parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) The applicant shall execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(b) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.

(c) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and cooperate with the