Lala Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 1 Ashish Naithani, J.

2. As per the State’s case, on 22.03.2025 at about 20:45 hours, the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, while conducting vehicle checking at Delhi Turn near U.K. Dhaba, intercepted the Applicant who was coming on a motorcycle. Upon search, the police party claims to have recovered 1.980 kilograms of Charas, along with one Nokia mobile phone and a sum of Rs. 1,000 from his possession. He was taken into custody at about 21:10 hours, and the recovery memo was prepared on the spot.

3. The Applicant was produced before the concerned Magistrate, and samples of the seized substance were forwarded for chemical examination. The Applicant’s bail application before the learned Special Judge, NDPS/ Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, was rejected on 13.05.2025, primarily on the ground of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Applicant has been in custody since

23.03.2025, and this is his first application for bail before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri S.K. Mandal, submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged recovery of 1.980 kilograms of Charas is highly doubtful. It is urged that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of about four hours, despite the police station being only 7 kilometers away from the place of alleged occurrence. Such an unexplained delay, according to Counsel, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of fabrication of the prosecution story.

5. It is further contended by the counsel of the Applicant that although the alleged recovery was affected from the person of the Applicant in a public place, no independent public witness First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 2 Ashish Naithani, J. was associated with the proceedings, despite the availability of such witnesses at the spot. The failure to secure independent corroboration, despite ample opportunity, renders the prosecution version doubtful.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant next points out that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. In particular, the Applicant was not informed of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The purported justification offered by the police party, that compliance was not possible as the recovery was during vehicle checking, is wholly untenable in law.

7. It is also urged that the procedure followed for sampling is contrary to the statutory mandate. The samples were not drawn before the learned Magistrate, but “ready-made samples” were produced before the Court and subsequently sent for chemical examination. To date, no conclusive proof has been furnished that the alleged contraband was indeed Charas. Such non-compliance with Sections 52 and 52A of the NDPS Act, and with Sections 105 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, vitiates the prosecution case.

8. Counsel further submits that the learned Special Judge, while rejecting the bail application, wrongly relied upon a previous case registered in the year 2011. It is pointed out that in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2011, State v. Lala Ram, the Applicant was acquitted by judgment dated 23.12.2019. Hence, there is no criminal antecedent against the Applicant.

9. It is lastly urged that the Applicant is a permanent First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 3 Ashish Naithani, J. resident of the district, has deep roots in society, and is willing to furnish reliable sureties. He is not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

10. Per contra, learned Brief Holder, appearing for the State, opposes the bail application. He submits that the recovery of 1.980 kilograms of Charas falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the rigours of Section 37 are attracted, which impose twin conditions before bail can be granted: (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

11. It is contended that the police party, while on duty, apprehended the Applicant in a fair and lawful manner and effected recovery of the contraband from his possession. The search and seizure was videographed, which, according to the State, lends further strength to the prosecution case. At this stage of the proceedings, such material cannot be discarded merely on the basis of technical objections.

12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the seriousness of the offence, involving illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, has wider societal implications. The legislative intent of the NDPS Act is to curb such offences with stringent measures. Hence, liberal grant of bail in such matters would frustrate the very object of the statute.

13. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR is minimal and stands explained by the intervening official formalities. Further, non-association of public witnesses cannot First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 4 Ashish Naithani, J. be a ground for discarding the State case at this stage, as it is a matter of appreciation of evidence during trial.

14. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

16. The Applicant has been in custody since 23.03.2025 in connection with FIR No. 69 of 2025 registered at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution rests on the allegation that 1.980 kilograms of Charas was recovered from the possession of the Applicant during vehicle checking conducted by the Anti-Narcotics Task Force.

17. It is an admitted position that the recovery alleged is of a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Section 37 creates a statutory embargo on the grant of bail unless the Court is satisfied on two counts: (i) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions, in addition to the general principles governing bail, must be met before a person accused of an offence involving a commercial quantity can be released.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, has underscored that the satisfaction contemplated by Section 37 is not prima facie First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 5 Ashish Naithani, J. satisfaction about the innocence of the accused, but only a reasonable ground based on material available at the stage of consideration.

19. Examining the record, it is noticed that there exists an unexplained delay of about four hours in lodging the FIR, despite the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station being only 7 km. Though the State seeks to justify the delay by attributing it to official formalities, the same does not find mention in the prosecution papers. Such delay, though not by itself conclusive, raises a reasonable doubt about the promptness and spontaneity of the prosecution version, particularly in cases involving serious penal consequences.

20. Another significant feature the alleged recovery was made at a public place, yet no independent witness was associated with the proceedings. The Apex Court has consistently observed that though non-association of public witnesses is not fatal, it casts an added duty on the Court to scrutinize the official version with greater caution.

21. The contention regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act also assumes importance. The State’s case is that the contraband was recovered during routine vehicle checking, and therefore, the mandatory safeguards under Section 50 were dispensed with. However, the recovery memo itself shows that the contraband was recovered from the personal search of the Applicant and his belongings. It is well settled that compliance with Section 50 is mandatory where a personal search is involved. At this stage, there is prima facie substance in the argument of the Applicant that Section 50 has not been First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 6 Ashish Naithani, J. complied with.

22. The further grievance of the Applicant that samples were not drawn before the Magistrate and that “ready-made samples” were produced also cannot be brushed aside lightly. Section 52A of the NDPS Act, read with Standing Order No. 1/88 of the Narcotics Control Bureau, provides a detailed procedure to ensure the sanctity of seized articles. The absence of clarity on this aspect casts doubt on the integrity of the sample, particularly when the FSL report has not been conclusively placed before this Court.

23. The cumulative effect of the above infirmities namely, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of independent witness, apparent non-compliance with Section 50, and doubtful sampling procedure creates a reasonable ground, at least at this stage, to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged within the meaning of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

24. Further, the Applicant is a permanent resident of the district, aged about 58 years, and there is no material to suggest that he is a habitual offender or that he is likely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court is therefore satisfied that the second limb of Section 37 is also met.

25. In the above conspectus, this Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has succeeded in making out a case for bail, notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 7 Ashish Naithani, J. ORDER The bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant, Lala Ram, son of Bhim Singh, be released on bail, during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 20.09.2025 NR/ First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, “Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand” 8 Ashish Naithani, J.