Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

BA2 No.6 of 2026

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned

counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G.

for the State.

3. Applicant–Sukhdev Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 575 of 2025, under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Haridwar

has sought his release on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

5. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide

order dated 20.11.2025.

6. As per the prosecution case, on 24.08.2025, an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant alleging that during routine checking conducted on the evening of 23.08.2025, the police apprehended the applicant and recovered charas from his

possession.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It is contended that the inventory report and arrest memo were allegedly prepared at the spot and only thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. However, all the said documents bear the F.I.R. number. It is submitted that this material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution case and indicates that the documents were not prepared in the manner alleged. It is further submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant at the time of

his arrest.

8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant was arrested pursuant to the alleged recovery, thereafter the arrest memo, seizure memo, and inventory report were prepared, and subsequently the F.I.R. was registered. However, he fairly conceded that he has no instructions as to how the F.I.R. number came to be mentioned in the inventory report.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the arrest of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of law, particularly the safeguards provided under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that at the time of arrest, the applicant was not informed of the specific and definite grounds of arrest, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 Cr.P.C.; that, the arrest memo does not disclose any independent application of mind nor does it record any reasons necessitating the arrest of the applicant, which is impermissible in law.

10. He would further submit that the applicant was not supplied with any written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, nor were the grounds read over and explained to him in a language understood by him. Such non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself and strikes at the root of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

11. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a previous convict; that the court below rejected the bail application vide order dated 06.09.2025 in a cursory and mechanical manner; that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Chamoli; that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; and that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

11. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.