Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand

applications pertain to the same FIR, recovery, and set of facts, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order, treating Bail Application No. 922 of 2025 as the lead matter.

2. The Applicant Anil Ladwal (in Bail Application No. 922 of 2025) is a resident of Plot No. 76, Dwarika Vihar, Police Station Ranipur, District 1 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. Haridwar, originally hailing from District Bhiwani, Haryana. The connected Applicant, Shamsher (in Bail Application No. 850 of 2025), is a native of Village Puranpur, District Bhiwani, Haryana, presently residing at Plot No. 36, Dwarika Vihar Colony, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. Both the Applicants have been in judicial custody since 21.03.2025, the date of their arrest in connection with the present case.

3. The State’s case, as borne out from the First Information Report lodged on 21.03.2025 at 22:44 hours by one Vikas Rawat, is that on receipt of secret information, the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, Haridwar, conducted a raid in the industrial area of Ranipur. The raid was carried out at a godown situated in Chauhan Compound under the name and style of “Anchal Road Carrier / Anchal Express”, allegedly operated by the Applicant Anil Ladwal.

4. During the search of the said premises, the police recovered twenty- three boxes containing 3,31,200 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (comprising Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen) and additional packets containing 10,368 capsules, making a total of 3,41,568 capsules. The capsules were seized, and samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of witnesses. Both Anil Ladwal and Shamsher were apprehended from the premises, and recovery memos were prepared in accordance with the case records

5. Both accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. The Anti-Narcotics Task Force in Haridwar subsequently took over the investigation. Upon completion of the initial stage of investigation, their bail applications were moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The bail application of Anil Ladwal was rejected by order dated 15.05.2025, and that of Shamsher by order dated 04.04.2025. 2 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel appearing for both the Applicants contended that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case; that the alleged godown from which the recovery was shown was accessible to several transporters and was not in the exclusive possession of either Applicant; that the alleged recovery has been planted to falsely connect them with the offence; and that there has been complete non- compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards contemplated under Sections 42, 50, 52-A, 55, and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

8. It is further submitted that no inventory was prepared in the prescribed form nor certified by the Magistrate as required under Section 52-A of the Act, and that the sampling procedure adopted was not in conformity with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2022, and the Central Government Notification dated 16.01.2015.

9. Learned counselfor the Applicants submitted that the entire seizure operation suffers from procedural infirmities, is no independent public witness, and that both accused are permanent residents with no criminal history.

10. It is contended that the Applicants have been in judicial custody since March 2025; that the investigation has already been concluded and the charge sheet submitted; and that further incarceration of the Applicants would serve no useful purpose.

11. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State, opposed the bail applications, submitting that the recovery of 3.41 lakh capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, being of commercial quantity, attracts the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act. It is contended that both Applicants were apprehended from the spot and that there is prima facie material 3 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. indicating their active participation in the storage and transportation of psychotropic substances.

12. The learned State counsel further submits that the investigation reveals that Anil Ladwal was the person responsible for the operations of the premises and that Shamsher assisted him in the illegal activity, thereby disqualifying them from the benefit of bail.

13. Having perused the record, this Court finds that the investigation was set in motion on the basis of specific secret information, which was duly reduced into writing. Pursuant thereto, a raid was conducted, and the recovery memo, site plan, and other contemporaneous documents have been brought on record as part of the case file.

14. The FIR was promptly lodged, and the seized material was duly sealed and forwarded to the competent authority. Whether the precise procedure under Section 52-A and the relevant rules was followed in every respect is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial, on the basis of oral and documentary proof, and not one that can be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.

15. The procedural lapses alleged by the defence, even if assumed to have occurred, do not by themselves establish the innocence of the Applicants or render the prosecution case untenable at the stage of considering bail.

16. The material collected so far shows that the premises where the contraband was found were being run in the name of Anchal Road Carrier / Anchal Express, and that the same was associated with Applicant Anil Ladwal. The godown contained sealed boxes of medicinal preparations with psychotropic content, and the presence of the co-accused Shamsher at the spot lends weight to the State’s claim of their joint involvement. 4 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

17. The argument regarding the absence of independent public witnesses to the seizure has also been considered. It is not uncommon for searches of such premises to be carried out in the presence of official witnesses when public persons decline to participate.

18. The authenticity of the recovery documents and the credibility of the police personnel are issues that can only be tested through cross- examination during trial. At this stage, there is no apparent reason to doubt the veracity of the record prepared by the officers in the course of their official duties.

19. The case record further discloses that the seized material was sealed on the spot, samples were drawn, the seizure report was sent to superior officers, and the articles were deposited in the malkhana without delay. The investigation appears to have been conducted in accordance with statutory procedure up to this point.

20. The veracity of these actions will undoubtedly be examined at trial. Still, for the limited purpose of bail, there is sufficient prima facie material to indicate compliance with the essential safeguards of law.

21. In offences under the NDPS Act, especially those involving commercial quantity, the Court is required to apply greater caution in granting bail. The statutory framework creates a presumption of culpability once possession is established, and it places a heavy burden on the accused to rebut such presumption. The Applicants have not been able to demonstrate any convincing circumstance to show that they were unconnected with the contraband or that their continued detention is unwarranted.

22. The argument that the Applicants are permanent residents and have no prior criminal history does not, in itself, dispel the presumption or satisfy the conditions required for bail enlargement. 5 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

23. The gravity of the offence, the enormity of the quantity recovered, and the nature of the substance seized weigh strongly against the Applicants.

24. The record suggests that both were apprehended from the very premises where the narcotic substance was discovered, and there is a clear prima facie link between them and the recovered goods. These factors create a reasonable belief, at least at this stage, that they were in conscious possession of the contraband and were part of a coordinated activity amounting to illicit trafficking.

25. The legislature has, by design, placed stringent restrictions on the grant of bail in such cases. For an accused to be released, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The material presently before this Court does not permit such satisfaction. On the contrary, the nature of recovery and the circumstances of arrest provide a strong prima facie foundation for the State’s case.

26. Considering the totality of facts and the statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court finds that the Applicants have failed to establish grounds for bail. The allegations are serious, the recovery is of commercial quantity, and there are sufficient circumstances to indicate their involvement. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of bail to either of the Applicants. The quantity of contraband recovered is of a commercial nature, the allegations disclose conscious possession, and 6 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. there exists prima facie material indicating their involvement in the illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances. The twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied, and hence, no indulgence can be granted at this stage. Accordingly, both the bail applications, being Bail Application No. 922 of 2025 (Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand) and Bail Application No. 850 of 2025 (Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand), are hereby rejected. Dated: 20.09.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani, J.) 7 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

applications pertain to the same FIR, recovery, and set of facts, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order, treating Bail Application No. 922 of 2025 as the lead matter.

2. The Applicant Anil Ladwal (in Bail Application No. 922 of 2025) is a resident of Plot No. 76, Dwarika Vihar, Police Station Ranipur, District 1 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. Haridwar, originally hailing from District Bhiwani, Haryana. The connected Applicant, Shamsher (in Bail Application No. 850 of 2025), is a native of Village Puranpur, District Bhiwani, Haryana, presently residing at Plot No. 36, Dwarika Vihar Colony, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. Both the Applicants have been in judicial custody since 21.03.2025, the date of their arrest in connection with the present case.

3. The State’s case, as borne out from the First Information Report lodged on 21.03.2025 at 22:44 hours by one Vikas Rawat, is that on receipt of secret information, the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, Haridwar, conducted a raid in the industrial area of Ranipur. The raid was carried out at a godown situated in Chauhan Compound under the name and style of “Anchal Road Carrier / Anchal Express”, allegedly operated by the Applicant Anil Ladwal.

4. During the search of the said premises, the police recovered twenty- three boxes containing 3,31,200 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (comprising Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen) and additional packets containing 10,368 capsules, making a total of 3,41,568 capsules. The capsules were seized, and samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of witnesses. Both Anil Ladwal and Shamsher were apprehended from the premises, and recovery memos were prepared in accordance with the case records

5. Both accused persons were produced before the learned Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. The Anti-Narcotics Task Force in Haridwar subsequently took over the investigation. Upon completion of the initial stage of investigation, their bail applications were moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The bail application of Anil Ladwal was rejected by order dated 15.05.2025, and that of Shamsher by order dated 04.04.2025. 2 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel appearing for both the Applicants contended that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case; that the alleged godown from which the recovery was shown was accessible to several transporters and was not in the exclusive possession of either Applicant; that the alleged recovery has been planted to falsely connect them with the offence; and that there has been complete non- compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards contemplated under Sections 42, 50, 52-A, 55, and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

8. It is further submitted that no inventory was prepared in the prescribed form nor certified by the Magistrate as required under Section 52-A of the Act, and that the sampling procedure adopted was not in conformity with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2022, and the Central Government Notification dated 16.01.2015.

9. Learned counselfor the Applicants submitted that the entire seizure operation suffers from procedural infirmities, is no independent public witness, and that both accused are permanent residents with no criminal history.

10. It is contended that the Applicants have been in judicial custody since March 2025; that the investigation has already been concluded and the charge sheet submitted; and that further incarceration of the Applicants would serve no useful purpose.

11. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State, opposed the bail applications, submitting that the recovery of 3.41 lakh capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, being of commercial quantity, attracts the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act. It is contended that both Applicants were apprehended from the spot and that there is prima facie material 3 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. indicating their active participation in the storage and transportation of psychotropic substances.

12. The learned State counsel further submits that the investigation reveals that Anil Ladwal was the person responsible for the operations of the premises and that Shamsher assisted him in the illegal activity, thereby disqualifying them from the benefit of bail.

13. Having perused the record, this Court finds that the investigation was set in motion on the basis of specific secret information, which was duly reduced into writing. Pursuant thereto, a raid was conducted, and the recovery memo, site plan, and other contemporaneous documents have been brought on record as part of the case file.

14. The FIR was promptly lodged, and the seized material was duly sealed and forwarded to the competent authority. Whether the precise procedure under Section 52-A and the relevant rules was followed in every respect is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial, on the basis of oral and documentary proof, and not one that can be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.

15. The procedural lapses alleged by the defence, even if assumed to have occurred, do not by themselves establish the innocence of the Applicants or render the prosecution case untenable at the stage of considering bail.

16. The material collected so far shows that the premises where the contraband was found were being run in the name of Anchal Road Carrier / Anchal Express, and that the same was associated with Applicant Anil Ladwal. The godown contained sealed boxes of medicinal preparations with psychotropic content, and the presence of the co-accused Shamsher at the spot lends weight to the State’s claim of their joint involvement. 4 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

17. The argument regarding the absence of independent public witnesses to the seizure has also been considered. It is not uncommon for searches of such premises to be carried out in the presence of official witnesses when public persons decline to participate.

18. The authenticity of the recovery documents and the credibility of the police personnel are issues that can only be tested through cross- examination during trial. At this stage, there is no apparent reason to doubt the veracity of the record prepared by the officers in the course of their official duties.

19. The case record further discloses that the seized material was sealed on the spot, samples were drawn, the seizure report was sent to superior officers, and the articles were deposited in the malkhana without delay. The investigation appears to have been conducted in accordance with statutory procedure up to this point.

20. The veracity of these actions will undoubtedly be examined at trial. Still, for the limited purpose of bail, there is sufficient prima facie material to indicate compliance with the essential safeguards of law.

21. In offences under the NDPS Act, especially those involving commercial quantity, the Court is required to apply greater caution in granting bail. The statutory framework creates a presumption of culpability once possession is established, and it places a heavy burden on the accused to rebut such presumption. The Applicants have not been able to demonstrate any convincing circumstance to show that they were unconnected with the contraband or that their continued detention is unwarranted.

22. The argument that the Applicants are permanent residents and have no prior criminal history does not, in itself, dispel the presumption or satisfy the conditions required for bail enlargement. 5 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

23. The gravity of the offence, the enormity of the quantity recovered, and the nature of the substance seized weigh strongly against the Applicants.

24. The record suggests that both were apprehended from the very premises where the narcotic substance was discovered, and there is a clear prima facie link between them and the recovered goods. These factors create a reasonable belief, at least at this stage, that they were in conscious possession of the contraband and were part of a coordinated activity amounting to illicit trafficking.

25. The legislature has, by design, placed stringent restrictions on the grant of bail in such cases. For an accused to be released, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The material presently before this Court does not permit such satisfaction. On the contrary, the nature of recovery and the circumstances of arrest provide a strong prima facie foundation for the State’s case.

26. Considering the totality of facts and the statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court finds that the Applicants have failed to establish grounds for bail. The allegations are serious, the recovery is of commercial quantity, and there are sufficient circumstances to indicate their involvement. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of bail to either of the Applicants. The quantity of contraband recovered is of a commercial nature, the allegations disclose conscious possession, and 6 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. there exists prima facie material indicating their involvement in the illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances. The twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied, and hence, no indulgence can be granted at this stage. Accordingly, both the bail applications, being Bail Application No. 922 of 2025 (Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand) and Bail Application No. 850 of 2025 (Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand), are hereby rejected. Dated: 20.09.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani, J.) 7 First Bail Application No. 922 of 2025-----------Anil Ladwal v. State of Uttarakhand with First Bail Application No. 850 of 2025-----------Shamsher v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.