IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 431 of 2025

Paramjeet Rathi ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Mahendra Pal, learned senior advocate assisted by Ms. Medha Pandey, learned counsel for

the Applicant.

Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)

1. The present bail application arises out of Case Crime No.22 of 2024

registered at Police Station Reeth Sahib, District Champawat, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Applicant, who is in custody since 08.01.2025, seeks

enlargement on bail pending trial.

2. The factual matrix as reflected in the FIR, charge-sheet and the affidavits

on record is that on 13.11.2024 a recovery of hashish, weighed as 11 kg 200 gms, was affected and four persons including the Applicant were named in the FIR as persons allegedly connected with the recovery; subsequent investigation resulted in submission of a charge-sheet and the

filing of forensic reports.

3. The Applicant contests the prosecution case on the ground that he was not

present at the scene, nothing was recovered from his person, the alleged involvement is based on the statements of co-accused and the investigation suffers from material procedural infirmities which, in his submission,

render the prosecution case doubtful.

4. The Sessions Court (Special Sessions Judge, NDPS) has declined bail vide its order dated 06.02.2025; that order is on record and forms part of the papers before this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is urged that the recovery was made from a vehicle/bag and not from the person of the Applicant. The only material against him is the statement of co-accused, which by itself, without independent corroboration, cannot form the basis for denial of bail under the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. It is further submitted that the investigating agency failed to comply with the statutory safeguards relating to search, seizure and inventory; no independent public witnesses have been cited, and the chain of custody is not clearly established. It is also pointed out that the Applicant has deep roots in society, no criminal antecedents, and is ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.

8. Opposing the bail application, the learned Brief Holder for the State contends that the recovery in the present case is of commercial quantity and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. It is argued that there is prima facie material linking the Applicant to the recovered contraband and that his release at this stage may hamper the trial.

9. The learned Brief Holder further submits that the FSL report confirms the substance to be hashish and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. According to the State, the gravity of the offence and the quantity recovered should weigh heavily against grant of bail.

10. This court observes that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act lay down stringent conditions for grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. The Court must be satisfied, first, that the prosecution has been heard in opposition to the bail application, and second, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than a mere prima facie case; it imports substantial probable cause for believing in the Applicant’s innocence.

11. Applying these standards to the present facts, it emerges that the contraband was not recovered from the person of the Applicant but from a bag/vehicle. The link connecting the Applicant to the recovered material is based primarily on the statements of co-accused, which, at this stage, do no