Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 1628/ 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State.

3. Applicant- Madan Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 36 of 2024, under Sections 8/20of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar has sought his release on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. As per the prosecution case, on 04.12.2024, during routine checking at about 16:50 hours, the police party apprehended the applicant and allegedly recovered 5.072 kilograms of Charas from a bag carried by him. On the basis of the said recovery, the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at about 18:50 hours on the same day.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the arrest is shown to have been made at 16:50 hours, whereas the FIR was registered at 18:50 hours, thereby creating doubt regarding the sequence of events. It is further argued that the arrest memo does not disclose the grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Learned counsel also submits that the arrest memo as well as the inventory report allegedly prepared prior to registration of the FIR bear the FIR number, which prima facie creates serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story. It is further contended that the inventory report has not been prepared in accordance with the prescribed format under the Rules of 2022 and that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding procedural safeguards.

7. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 04.12.2024; there is no independent public witness to the alleged recovery; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Bageshwar and there is no likelihood of his absconding; and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that although a counter affidavit has been filed, there is no specific explanation regarding the mention of the FIR number in the arrest memo and the inventory report allegedly prepared prior to registration of the FIR.

9. Be that as it may, the offence alleged falls under the provisions of the NDPS Act, a stringent special enactment intended to curb the menace of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 37 of the Act imposes strict conditions for grant of bail, reflecting the legislative intent to deal firmly with such offences. At the same time, it is well settled that the mandatory procedural safeguards provided under the Act must