##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11612

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

29^TH DECEMBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.2503 of 2025

Monu alias Sandeep ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate

(through video conferencing)

Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal,

Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kum ar Verm a,J.

The applicant-Monu alias Sandeep is in

judicial custody for the offence under Section 8 read

with Section 21 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act,

1985”) in Case Crime No.30 of 2025, registered at

Police Station Kalsi, District Dehradun.

2. According to the First Information Report

dated 12.12.2025, the applicant was apprehended by

the police on suspicion. He was searched by the police.

The police recovered 160 gm. smack from the right

pocket of his jacket. He was arrested at 21:05 hrs.

3. Heard Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for

the applicant and Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned

1

2025:UHC:11612

Brief Holder for the respondent.

4. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, contended that

the applicant is an innocent person. The alleged smack

was not recovered from the possession of the

applicant. There was no independent witness at the

time of the alleged recovery. This fact also supports the

submission of the applicant. The mandatory provision

of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was not followed.

Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a

permanent resident of District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,

therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. The

alleged recovered smack is less than commercial

quantity.

5. Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, Brief Holder has

opposed the bail application orally.

6. As per Table prepared under Section 2 (xxiii-

a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the said Act, 1985, lesser

than 5 gm of smack (Heroin) is small quantity and

greater than 250 gm of smack is commercial quantity

(Entry No.56).

7. The object of keeping the accused in

detention during the investigation is not punishment.

The main purpose is manifestly to secure the

attendance of the accused. There is nothing on record

2

2025:UHC:11612

to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved

in any unacceptable activities.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned

counsel for both the parties and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, without expressing any

opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the

view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant – Monu alias Sandeep be

released on bail on his executing a personal bond and

furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like

amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date:29.12.2025

JKJ/Pant

3