IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 of 2025

Lala Ram …Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand …Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.K. Mandal,

learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned

Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present first bail application has been moved by

the Applicant, Lala Ram, aged about 58 years, son of Bhim Singh, resident of Village Khambari, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who is presently confined in jail. It arises from FIR No. 69 of 2025, Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, registered under Sections 8, 20, and 60 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. As per the State’s case, on 22.03.2025 at about 20:45 hours, the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, while conducting vehicle checking at Delhi Turn near U.K. Dhaba, intercepted the Applicant who was coming on a motorcycle. Upon search, the police party claims to have recovered 1.980 kilograms of Charas, along with one Nokia mobile phone and a sum of Rs. 1,000 from his possession. He was taken into custody at about 21:10 hours, and the recovery memo was prepared on the spot.

3. The Applicant was produced before the concerned Magistrate, and samples of the seized substance were forwarded for chemical examination. The Applicant’s bail application before the learned Special Judge, NDPS/ Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, was rejected on 13.05.2025, primarily on the ground of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Applicant has been in custody since 23.03.2025, and this is his first application for bail before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri S.K. Mandal, submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged recovery of 1.980 kilograms of Charas is highly doubtful. It is urged that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of about four hours, despite the police station being only 7 kilometers away from the place of alleged occurrence. Such an unexplained delay, according to Counsel, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of fabrication of the prosecution story.

5. It is further contended by the counsel of the Applicant that although the alleged recovery was affected from the person of the Applicant in a public place, no independent public witness was associated with the proceedings, despite the availability of such witnesses at the spot. The failure to secure independent corroboration, despite ample opportunity, renders the prosecution version doubtful.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant next points out that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. In particular, the Applicant was not informed of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The purported justification offered by the police party, that compliance was not possible as the recovery was during vehicle checking, is wholly untenable in law.

7. It is also urged that the procedure followed for sampling is contrary to the statutory mandate. The samples were not drawn before the learned Magistrate, but “ready-made samples” were produced before the Court and subsequently sent for chemical examination. To date, no conclusive proof has been furnished that the alleged contraband was indeed Charas. Such non-compliance with Sections 52 and 52A of the NDPS Act, and with Sections 105 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, vitiates the prosecution case.

8. Counsel further submits that the learned Special Judge, while rejecting the bail application, wrongly relied upon a previous case registered in the year 2011. It is pointed out that in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2011, State v. Lala Ram, the Applicant was acquitted by judgment dated 23.12.2019. Hence, there is no criminal antecedent against the Applicant.

9. It is lastly urged that the Applicant is a permanent resident of the district, has deep roots in society,