Back
Flags Suspicious Backdating in NDPS Arrest Records
In a judgment that underscores the importance of procedural integrity in narcotics cases, the has granted regular bail to accused Mursaleen after discovering that official documents carried an FIR number before the FIR itself had been registered.
The Mystery of the Missing Timeline
On , police at Bahadrabad in Haridwar district claimed to have intercepted Mursaleen on a motorcycle and recovered 1.042 kilograms of smack from a bag he was carrying. The FIR was lodged under . Yet when the court examined the arrest memo and inventory report, it found those documents already bore the FIR number—something that should have been impossible if they were truly prepared before registration.
Justice Ashish Naithani observed that this discrepancy created two equally troubling possibilities: either the FIR was registered earlier than officially recorded, or the documents were prepared later and then back-dated. Both scenarios, the court noted, strike at the “procedural sanctity mandated under the .”
Fabricated Records or Routine Error?
Counsel for Mursaleen argued that the documentation was deliberately manipulated. The arrest memo and inventory report—ostensibly drawn up at the spot—contained an FIR number that could only have existed after registration. This, he contended, proved the records were ante-dated and undermined the entire prosecution story of recovery from the spot.
The State countered that the FIR number had simply been added later with a pen, after registration, and that there was no police enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused. It also highlighted Mursaleen’s criminal history.
Justice Naithani was unconvinced. The very fact that documents prepared “prior to lodging of the FIR” already referred to a crime number that did not yet exist made the entire sequence inherently suspicious.
Court’s Key Findings on Procedural Lapses
“Thus, it is clear that the arrest memo and the inventory report purportedly prepared prior to the registration of the FIR and curiously bears the FIR number, this renders the documentation, search and seizure, inherently suspicious and indicative it being .”
The court further held:
“This Court finds that the arrest become as it suggests that FIR number was actually registered earlier but shown later on the arrest memo, and the inventory report, was prepared after the FIR, but falsely back dated. In both situations, undermine the procedural sanctity mandated under the .”
Bail Granted Despite Criminal Antecedents
While acknowledging the accused’s previous cases, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities were serious enough to tilt the balance in favour of bail. Mursaleen was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties. He must cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty granted.
The ruling serves as a timely reminder that strict compliance with documentation timelines is not mere formality—it can determine whether an accused stays behind bars or steps out on bail.
