IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

First Bail Application No.1332 of 2025

15^th October, 2025

Rohit Kumar --Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Applicant Rohit Kumar, who is in judicial

custody in Case Crime/FIR No.05 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, registered at P. S. Bhatrauj

Khan, District Almora, has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged against the applicant by one Kartar Singh, Sub- Inspector, alleging that 42.515 kilograms of ganja were recovered from the possession of the applicant. The FIR

was registered under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further contended that, as per the FIR, the applicant was arrested at 7:30 p.m. on 01.02.2025, while the FIR was lodged later at 9:52 p.m., yet the number of the FIR is mentioned in the arrest memo, which creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the recovery. It is further submitted that the description of the contraband in the recovery memo mentions it as “patterned, granular and striped substance,” whereas the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act includes only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). Therefore, it is argued that the alleged recovery does not fall within the statutory definition of ganja.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the procedure prescribed under Sections 42, 50, and 52A of the NDPS Act was duly followed and the recovery was made in accordance with law.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the alleged inconsistencies in the recovery and FIR details, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

7. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

I) He shall attend the Trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

II) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

III) He shall not leave India without any prior permission of the Trial Court.

8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the complainant/informant will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

15.10.2025 BS B SI A N L G W H ANT DDU2cs0D ee. A T iN a 5 r g 8 7t i . : 4 a i 6 e A A tc l .4 : a 2 N = 1 R 2 0 l 0 3 IA u 0 y c N = Cm K 2 5 s, f 1 5 H 8 i b o b g 4. 2 Ab = 1 e n A 0 0 Nd H r e 6 ,= . 1D 1 Id p 8 G 0 9 5 o 0 , b 4 H 1 C s 1 E y ct 37 C 1 8a B F: O 4lb 3 A C A1 d 5 U o L 9D : b WR 3 d 0F 8 T e , A 4 b c = O + 6 N 1 n 2 0 1 F 6 = T 6 5 4 e U B 3 S ' F 8 3A 0 TI 9 c N 0LA a ' G 1 A W 7 4, HR 9 DA s A 3 t5N =7 K FT dU H 4 e S T8 A a I3 N N fA4 7 D G6R2 , HEA a o B 1K u 5 7H = cA H 3 0ND 2 IG fDE e H 5,2 1 e C 8 a O 5 c U F b 4 R f2 1 T 8 8 O c 7 d F 5 f 4 D b C a7 0