IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No.388 of 2025

Kapil alias Vikki alias Shankat ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence: Ms. Nishat Intezar, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed by the Applicant, Kapil alias Vikki alias Shankat, seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No.563 of 2024, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, registered under Sections 8/22 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. On 09.11.2024 at about 6:12 p.m., the police party apprehended the Applicant from a public place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rudrapur and, upon his search, allegedly recovered 28 injections of Buprenorphine, 27 injections of Diazepam and 50 injections of Avil, totaling 105 injections. A first information report was registered the same day at 6:30 p.m., on the basis of the alleged seizure. The general diary entry reflecting the incident was also recorded at

6:12 p.m.

3. The Applicant was taken into custody on 09.11.2024, and since then, he has remained in judicial custody. A bail application was preferred by him before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Udham Singh Nagar, which came to be rejected by an order dated 09.12.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has filed the present first bail application before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., assailing the rejection order and praying for his release on bail during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Nishat Intezar, argued that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and that the allegations contained in the FIR are wholly concocted. It was contended that although the Applicant is shown to have been apprehended from a crowded public place on 09.11.2024, the prosecution has not associated a single independent witness either to the arrest or to the alleged recovery. According to learned counsel, this omission casts serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation and renders the alleged seizure highly suspicious.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the recovery memo relied upon by the prosecution contains the FIR number, which, in the ordinary course of events, could not have been mentioned if the memo had truly been prepared at the spot, prior to lodging of the FIR. This discrepancy, it was urged, demonstrates that the documents have been ante-dated and fabricated to support a false case.

6. It was next contended by learned counsel for the Applicant that the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act were not adhered to at the time of arrest and seizure. In particular, the applicant was not afforded his statutory rights during the search, and there is nothing to suggest that the search and seizure proceedings were conducted in strict compliance with the law. Learned counsel emphasized that non-compliance with these safeguards vitiates the entire prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that nothing incriminating was ever recovered from the possession of the applicant and that the recovery shown in the FIR has been planted.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant also highlighted that the Applicant is a permanent resident of Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and has no previous criminal antecedents. It was urged that the Applicant has been in custody since 09.11.2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. It was argued that prolonged incarceration at this stage would cause irreparable hardship and is not justified in law. Learned counsel assured that the Applicant is ready to furnish adequate bail bonds and will abide by all conditions that the Court may impose.

8. On the other hand, learned Deputy A.G.A., K.S. Bohra, appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that the recovery of 105 injections, including Buprenorphine and