Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

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

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1 No.1549 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.63 of 2025, under Section 8, 22, 23 & 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 212 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely implicated in the instant crime, has no criminal history. He submits that the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant is below commercial quantity. It is contended that the Inventory Report has not been certified by the Magistrate in accordance with Form-4 as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. demonstrates that the inventory is shown to have been prepared at the spot, yet it strangely contains the F.I.R. number, which raises serious doubt regarding its genuineness. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been held that procedural irregularities and non- compliance with mandatory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act are material considerations while adjudicating bail applications. It was further held that although Section 37 of the Act prescribes stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail, the Court is nonetheless required to examine whether serious procedural lapses exist which may undermine the credibility of the prosecution case.

4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail applicant and submits if applicant is granted bail, he will flee away from justice, as he hails from Nepal.

5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicants deserve bail at this stage.

6. Since the applicant is a Nepali National, therefore, the bail application is allowed in the following terms:

Let the applicant, namely, Aditya Khuna alias Sanjay Dangora be released on bail, on executing personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and furnishing two reliable local sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the