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. 52 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The present applicant ‘Mohsin’ S/o Shri Mohd. Raees is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 18.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 449 of 2024 P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/60 of NDPS Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and furthermore the alleged contraband, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant i.e. 305 gms of smack is a commercial quantity but the search and seizure as conducted by the prosecution is completely doubtful as there is no compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act and specifically this aspect has been pleaded in paragraph 6 of the bail application, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

5. Apart from this, he submits that there is no independent witness and the present applicant is not previously convict.

6. Learned A.G.A. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht on written instructions apprise to this court that the applicant have a criminal history and there are three other cases which are as follows:

(i) Case Crime No. 194 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

8/20 of NDPS Act.

8/22/60 of NDPS Act.

7. Apart from this, he submits that there is proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and submits that the present applicant does not deserve for bail since the applicant is a habitual offender and he is involved in three other criminal cases out of which two cases pertains to NDPS Act.

8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the written instructions as shown by the learned State counsel before this court, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

04.04.2025 PR