Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

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

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 366/ 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.

3. Applicant – Jainul Aabdin, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 32 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short N.D.P.S. Act) registered at Police Station Haldwani District Nainital, has sought his release on bail.

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

5. As per the prosecution case, on 02.02.2025, an F.I.R. was registered against the present applicant under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, alleging that on the same date, during routine checking, the applicant was apprehended by the police team and a narcotic substance was recovered from his possession.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant was apprehended on 02.02.2025 at about 15:25 hours, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged later at about 17:40 hours. Surprisingly, the inventory report bears the F.I.R. number, which creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not produced before the Magistrate and no certificate under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has been issued by the Magistrate, thereby demonstrating non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.02.2025; that, applicant was moved bail application before the learned court below and the same was rejected on 18.02.2025. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or misusing the liberty if released on bail.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, however, fairly admits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2025 and that his bail application was rejected by the court below on 18.02.2025.

9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. Accordingly, the 1^st bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) The applicant shall execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(b) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.

(c) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation.