Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the

Applicant.

2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA, for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case

arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular

bail for the Applicant – Mursaleen, who has been accused in

Case Crime/FIR No.274 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/60 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at

Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on the FIR that on

05.07.2025, while the Police Team was in the regular duty of

crime control and check-up, they came across the present

Applicant, who was riding a black colour Super Splendour

Plus motorcycle with Registration No.UP12BQ6728. As per

the FIR, the Applicant is said to have confessed to the Police

that he was carrying a contraband, namely, smack and other

things inside the bag, which he was carrying on his shoulder,

but after having verified the said registration number of the

vehicle through E-challan machine, it was found that the

motorcycle belongs to one Jabeer S/o Jabbar R/o Village Jola,

Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar

Pradesh. When call for the papers of the said vehicle, the

Applicant could not reveal the documents, which were asked

for regarding the said vehicle, not even the Applicant have a

valid driving licence, and thereafter the motorcycle and the

Applicant then booked under the Motor Vehicle Act. After

conveying the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,

regarding search and seizure of the contraband, his possession

is searched for i.e. bag, and after opening the same the

contraband involved in the present matter was seized. The

total amount of smack recovered from the bag of the

Applicant is 1.042 kilograms.

5. The main ground for consideration of the bail as

advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the

Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. In

fact, the real story is that it was lifted from his godown and

not from the spot where it is said to be. Referring to Section

58 of the NDPS Act, whereby it is provided that “whoever

without reasonable ground or suspicion enters does a search,

vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any

person and vexatiously and unnecessarily detains and

searches and arrests the person” it comes within the brackets

of punishable offence. Referring to the said section, learned

counsel for the Applicant submits that the present case is

nothing but vexatious, the seizure and the arrest have been all

built up.

6. The second argument placed before this Court

regarding consideration for bail is that after his arrest, arrest

memo was drafted on the spot, including the inventory report

and even prior to lodging of the FIR, the said documentation

contains an FIR number which cannot be done. Since crime

number can only be mentioned after the lodging of the FIR

and hence the arrest memo, including the inventory report is

ante time documented. Meaning thereby, it has been prepared

later, but shown to have been made earlier. Mention of an FIR

number, which did not, exists at the time of the arrest

indicates fabrication or manipulation of official record. Thus,

it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the

bail may be granted to the Applicant on whatever conditions

the Court imposes on him, he abides by the same.

7. Learned State Counsel refutes to the said submissions

as advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant on the

ground that there is no fabrication in the present matter and

there was no ground to show that the Applicant had

vexatiously a