IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

2^nd Bail Application No.193 of 2025

Shanu ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application is the second application filed by the

Applicant, Shanu, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Rahees Ahmad, resident of Ward No. 08, Ram Katori, Fatehganj West, District Bareilly,

Uttar Pradesh, who is presently in judicial custody since 20.10.2024.

2. The case arises out of FIR No. 0165 of 2024 dated 19.10.2024,

registered under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at

Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The case, in brief, is that on 19.10.2024, while the police were on

patrol duty near Shankar Farm, a ‘Wagon-R’ car approaching from

Kichha in the direction of Sitarganj was intercepted. The occupants of

the vehicle, namely the Applicant, Khurshid, and Aashma, appeared

nervous, and upon being strictly questioned, they allegedly confessed to

carrying smack for the purpose of sale.

4. After apprising them of their rights under Section 50 NDPS Act,

a search was conducted in the presence of the Circle Officer. From the Applicant’s trousers, two transparent foils containing a brown and

maroon substance suspected to be smack were recovered. Similar recoveries were made from co-accused Khurshid and Aashma.

5. The recovered contraband was seized, sealed, and samples were drawn. The seized material was later sent for forensic examination. A charge sheet has been filed against the Applicant and co-accused under the aforesaid provisions.

6. The Applicant had earlier filed First Bail Application No. 2522 of

2024, which this Court dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2025. The present is the second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 20.10.2024, and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly. It is submitted that the Applicant has already suffered a considerable period of incarceration, and prolonged detention would amount to inflicting punishment before conviction.

8. It is further urged that the investigation is complete, the charge-

sheet has already been filed, and therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant confined any longer. The continued custody of the Applicant is unnecessary for the progress of the investigation or trial.

9. It is emphasised that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Bareilly with strong social roots, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is submitted that the Applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, including marking attendance before the trial court and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.

10. Reliance is also placed on the principle of parity, inasmuch as the role attributed to the Applicant is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. On these grounds, it is prayed that the Applicant be released on bail.

11. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that a recovery of 353 grams of smack was effected from the conscious possession of the Applicant, which squarely falls within the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the embargo under Section

37 of the Act comes into operation.

12. It is argued that the contraband was recovered from the very pockets of the Applicant’s trousers, thereby establishing his conscious possession, and all statutory formalities were duly complied with. The offence alleged is of a grave nature, and enlargement of the Applicant on bail would have a serious adverse impact on society at large.

13. It is also contended that unle