I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

18^th DECEMBER, 2025 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2435 OF 2025 Jograj ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant – Jograj is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in First Information Report No.348 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. According to the First Information Report dated 28.10.2025, the police saw the applicant who was coming holding a plastic bag in his hand. Seeing the police, he wanted to run away. He was apprehended on suspicion. The police recovered 1025 gm. of opium from his plastic bag. He was arrested at

16:40 hrs.

3. Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.

4. Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate, for the applicant has contended that the applicant is an innocent person. The alleged opium was not recovered from his possession. The said recovery was planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. This fact makes the police story doubtful. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, the alleged recovered opium is less than the commercial quantity.

5. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally. However, he submitted on instruction that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

6. As per Table prepared under Section 2 (xxiii- a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, lesser than 25 gm. of Opium is small quantity and greater than 2.5 Kg. of Opium is commercial quantity (Entry No.92).

7. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant – Jograj 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.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 18.12.2025 Pant/