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.2514 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Girveer Chand, 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.76 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi.

3. Applicant was apprehended on 02.11.2025 at about 13:20 hours, and it is alleged that 930 grams of Charas was recovered from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 02.11.2025. It is further contended that the alleged recovery of Charas is less than the commercial quantity prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is also submitted that no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery, which creates doubt regarding the fairness of the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024), 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 relevant considerations while adjudicating bail applications. The Court further observed 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. Learned counsel assures the Court that, in the event the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation/ trial, and shall furnish adequate personal bonds and sureties as may be directed by the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not disputed that the alleged recovery from the possession of the applicant is 930 grams of Charas, which is less than the commercial quantity prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Consequently, the rigours of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted with the same degree of strictness as in cases involving commercial quantity. It has also been contended that no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.11.2025 and has no criminal history. There is nothing on record to indicate that, if released on bail, the applicant would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

7. Considering the quantity involved, the period of incarceration, and the overall circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant, namely, Aryan Singh Rawat be released on bail, on executing