State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the

lodged in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 165 of 2024 registered under Sections 8, 21, 29, and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant seeks her release on bail on the grounds that she has been falsely implicated, that the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act were not complied with by the investigating agency, and that the prosecution has failed to produce any independent witnesses to support the allegations. The application is opposed by the State, which maintains that the recovery of contraband from the applicant is direct and falls within the definition of “commercial quantity,” thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. The case of the State, as borne out from the FIR and the supporting material, is that on 19.10.2024, a police party on routine law and order duty near Shankar Farm intercepted a blue Wagon R car occupied by two men and a woman. All three occupants appeared nervous and were thus First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. subjected to inquiry. Upon being apprised of their legal rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, all three consented to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. The Circle Officer was called to the scene and, upon his arrival, directed that the search of the female accused, i.e., the present Applicant, be conducted by a female police officer in his presence.

3. Two transparent plastic foils were recovered from the Applicant’s possession, concealed in her dupatta, containing brown powdery substance later identified as smack. The net weight of the recovered contraband from the Applicant alone was 350 grams. The arrest and recovery were videographed on-site, and proper recovery, consent, arrest, and weighing memos were prepared and signed.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that there are procedural lapses that vitiate the search and recovery, particularly under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Counsel further submits that no independent witnesses were associated with the recovery and that the Applicant has been implicated solely due to her association with the co-accused. It is argued that the Applicant, being a woman, deserves leniency and that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time.

5. The State, however, refuted these claims by pointing to the presence of procedural compliance through documentary evidence and the statements of the officers recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. It is also brought to the Court’s notice that the Applicant has previously been booked under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 265 of 2020, and thus, she is not a first-time offender.

6. This Court has carefully evaluated the material on record, submissions advanced by both sides, and the applicable legal framework. Section 37 of the NDPS Act governs the grant of bail in cases involving a commercial First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. quantity of narcotics. It imposes twin mandatory conditions before a person accused of such an offence may be released on bail.

7. The Court must be satisfied, firstly, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and secondly, that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These limitations operate in addition to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In the present matter, the recovery of 350 grams of smack, a substance falling within the ambit of “commercial quantity” as notified under the Act, is not in dispute. The recovery is from the person of the Applicant herself, rather than being attributable to a vehicle or co-accused in a collective manner. The records reveal that the Applicant was informed of her legal rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and a lady officer conducted her search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The State has placed on record the consent memo, the video footage of the recovery, and contemporaneous documentary evidence, including the inventory and arrest memos.

9. It is well settled that the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where procedural safeguards are followed, and consistent official testimony exists. Furthermore, the State has satisfactorily explained the unavailability of independent witnesses during a mobile vehicle check.

10. Any material irregularity in the record has not substantiated the Applicant’s contention regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 52. The recovery and subsequent arrest appear to have been carried out in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Applicant’s past involvement in a similar NDPS offence further weakens her plea that she is being falsely implicated or has a law-abiding background.

11. At this stage, the case materials do not offer reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty. Rather, the allegations are supported by a credible chain of events, documentary evidence, and recovery directly from her possession. The Court also takes note of the fact First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. that the FSL report is awaited, and the investigation is ongoing. Enlarging the Applicant on bail in such a scenario, where the contraband involved is of a commercial quantity and the accused has a prior criminal history, poses a substantial risk of recurrence and undermines the ongoing investigation. There is a reasonable apprehension that the Applicant may abscond or influence the course of justice if released. ORDER In view of the facts emerging from the State material, the nature and quantity of the contraband seized, the direct recovery from the personal possession of the Applicant, the past criminal history involving an NDPS case, and the stringent conditions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that the Applicant has successfully discharged the burden of demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe that she is not guilty of the offence, or that she would refrain from committing any such offence if released. The statutory embargo under Section 37 is therefore fully attracted. At this juncture, releasing the Applicant on bail would not be consistent with the larger interest of justice, public safety, and the statutory scheme under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:15.07.2025 NR/ First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

lodged in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 165 of 2024 registered under Sections 8, 21, 29, and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant seeks her release on bail on the grounds that she has been falsely implicated, that the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act were not complied with by the investigating agency, and that the prosecution has failed to produce any independent witnesses to support the allegations. The application is opposed by the State, which maintains that the recovery of contraband from the applicant is direct and falls within the definition of “commercial quantity,” thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. The case of the State, as borne out from the FIR and the supporting material, is that on 19.10.2024, a police party on routine law and order duty near Shankar Farm intercepted a blue Wagon R car occupied by two men and a woman. All three occupants appeared nervous and were thus First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. subjected to inquiry. Upon being apprised of their legal rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, all three consented to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. The Circle Officer was called to the scene and, upon his arrival, directed that the search of the female accused, i.e., the present Applicant, be conducted by a female police officer in his presence.

3. Two transparent plastic foils were recovered from the Applicant’s possession, concealed in her dupatta, containing brown powdery substance later identified as smack. The net weight of the recovered contraband from the Applicant alone was 350 grams. The arrest and recovery were videographed on-site, and proper recovery, consent, arrest, and weighing memos were prepared and signed.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that there are procedural lapses that vitiate the search and recovery, particularly under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Counsel further submits that no independent witnesses were associated with the recovery and that the Applicant has been implicated solely due to her association with the co-accused. It is argued that the Applicant, being a woman, deserves leniency and that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time.

5. The State, however, refuted these claims by pointing to the presence of procedural compliance through documentary evidence and the statements of the officers recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. It is also brought to the Court’s notice that the Applicant has previously been booked under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 265 of 2020, and thus, she is not a first-time offender.

6. This Court has carefully evaluated the material on record, submissions advanced by both sides, and the applicable legal framework. Section 37 of the NDPS Act governs the grant of bail in cases involving a commercial First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. quantity of narcotics. It imposes twin mandatory conditions before a person accused of such an offence may be released on bail.

7. The Court must be satisfied, firstly, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and secondly, that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These limitations operate in addition to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In the present matter, the recovery of 350 grams of smack, a substance falling within the ambit of “commercial quantity” as notified under the Act, is not in dispute. The recovery is from the person of the Applicant herself, rather than being attributable to a vehicle or co-accused in a collective manner. The records reveal that the Applicant was informed of her legal rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and a lady officer conducted her search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The State has placed on record the consent memo, the video footage of the recovery, and contemporaneous documentary evidence, including the inventory and arrest memos.

9. It is well settled that the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where procedural safeguards are followed, and consistent official testimony exists. Furthermore, the State has satisfactorily explained the unavailability of independent witnesses during a mobile vehicle check.

10. Any material irregularity in the record has not substantiated the Applicant’s contention regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 52. The recovery and subsequent arrest appear to have been carried out in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Applicant’s past involvement in a similar NDPS offence further weakens her plea that she is being falsely implicated or has a law-abiding background.

11. At this stage, the case materials do not offer reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty. Rather, the allegations are supported by a credible chain of events, documentary evidence, and recovery directly from her possession. The Court also takes note of the fact First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. that the FSL report is awaited, and the investigation is ongoing. Enlarging the Applicant on bail in such a scenario, where the contraband involved is of a commercial quantity and the accused has a prior criminal history, poses a substantial risk of recurrence and undermines the ongoing investigation. There is a reasonable apprehension that the Applicant may abscond or influence the course of justice if released. ORDER In view of the facts emerging from the State material, the nature and quantity of the contraband seized, the direct recovery from the personal possession of the Applicant, the past criminal history involving an NDPS case, and the stringent conditions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that the Applicant has successfully discharged the burden of demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe that she is not guilty of the offence, or that she would refrain from committing any such offence if released. The statutory embargo under Section 37 is therefore fully attracted. At this juncture, releasing the Applicant on bail would not be consistent with the larger interest of justice, public safety, and the statutory scheme under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:15.07.2025 NR/ First Bail Application No. 180 of 2025 Aashma Vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.