2386 I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTA RA K H v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

Counsel for t he Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat , learned counsel. Counsel for t he St at e : Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. The present bail applicat ion has been m oved by t he applicant - Manoj Singh Rawat , who j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h FI R No.509 of 2023, regist ered at Police St at ion Raipur, Dist rict Dehradun, under Sect ions 8 & 20 of Narcot ic Drugs and Psychot ropic Subst ances Act , 1985 ( hereinaft er referred t o as N.D.P.S. Act ) .

2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat , learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e.

3. As per t he prosecut ion st ory an FI R was lodged by t he com plainant on 25.11.2023 alleging t herein t hat on

24.11.2023, t he com plainant along wit h ot her police officials were involved in keeping peace and securit y, m eanwhile t hey saw a person com ing t owards t hem , 1 carrying a bag on his shoulders, who on seeing police personnel t urned and st art ed running t owards j ungle. On suspicion police personnel caught him im m ediat ely; upon asking t he reason for running away, t he applicant could not answer and confessed his guilt .

3. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he cont raband seized in t he present case is charas and if it is in t he shape of st icks t hen it is im port ant t hat sam pling m ust be done from each port ion ot herwise t he port ions, which are left out for sam pling, m ay not be included in t he final result relat ing t o t he weight of t he cont raband in t he present case, which is charas.

4. Learned counsel for t he applicant has placed reliance on t he decision t aken by t he Coordinat e Bench in BA1 No.171 of 2023 Awt ar Singh vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand. Para 8 & 9 of t he j udgm ent are reproduced hereinbelow: - I nvent ory Report also doubt s t he “ 8. The prosecut ion case because it records t he case crim e num ber. I f it was subsequent ly added, who added it ?

9. I n addit ion t o it , t he sam ple has been t aken random ly and not from each of t he st rips. How can it be said t he represent at ive sam ple?

5. Apart from t he above cont ent ion, learned counsel for t he applicant st ressed upon a t hat as per t he prosecut ion case aft er t he search and seizure t he applicant / accused was arrest ed on t he spot and arrest m em o was also prepared t hereaft er but surprisingly before t he applicant / accused was t aken t o t he concerned police st at ion, t he arrest m em o, which was prepared on t he spot when applicant was arrest ed, t here is a m ent ion of FI R.

6. I t is st at ed t hat how can an FI R be regist ered before arrest , search and seizure of t he cont raband. This fault in t he present m at t er regarding search, seizure and arrest vit iat es t he very m andat ory procedure t hat have been provided in t he N.D.P.A. Act . Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant is languishing in j ail since 03.09.2024 and he m ay be enlarged on bail.

7. Learned St at e Counsel has st rongly opposed t he bail applicat ion st at ing t herein t hat com pliance of Sect ion 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has been com plied wit h and if t here are any discrepancies in t he invent ory report t hat will not weight as an advant age favour of t he applicant considerat ion of t he bail. The cont raband, so seized from t he applicant , is m ore t han a com m ercial quant it y and it is serious offence, t herefore bail should not be grant ed.

8. Aft er hearing t he learned counsel for t he part ies and perusal of t he record at t he out set , I find sufficient grounds t o grant t he bail. First ly, at t he out set because case crim e num ber has been m ent ioned in t he arrest m em o i.e. Ex.- P2 Annexure 2 t o t he supplem ent ary affidavit , which as per procedure can only be m ent ioned aft er t he first inform at ion report is lodged. The dat e and t im e of arrest as recorded in Ex.P2 is on 24.11.2023 at 23: 30, place of incident Ram pur Road near Nanaksar Gurudwara and as per t he FI R t he inform at ion received at t he police st at ion is recorded on 25.11.20223 at 02: 59 t he t im e of occurrence is not ed as 24.11.2023. Therefore, t his cannot be t erm ed as m erely a procedural or t ypographical error but m ay ot herwise cast e a st rong doubt in t he present m at t er. This alone is sufficient for grant of bail.

9. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant - Manoj Singh Rawat be released on bail on execut ing a personal bond and t wo reliable suret ies of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of court concerned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 28.03.2025 Art i ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH

Counsel for t he Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat , learned counsel. Counsel for t he St at e : Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. The present bail applicat ion has been m oved by t he applicant - Manoj Singh Rawat , who j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h FI R No.509 of 2023, regist ered at Police St at ion Raipur, Dist rict Dehradun, under Sect ions 8 & 20 of Narcot ic Drugs and Psychot ropic Subst ances Act , 1985 ( hereinaft er referred t o as N.D.P.S. Act ) .

2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat , learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e.

3. As per t he prosecut ion st ory an FI R was lodged by t he com plainant on 25.11.2023 alleging t herein t hat on

24.11.2023, t he com plainant along wit h ot her police officials were involved in keeping peace and securit y, m eanwhile t hey saw a person com ing t owards t hem , 1 carrying a bag on his shoulders, who on seeing police personnel t urned and st art ed running t owards j ungle. On suspicion police personnel caught him im m ediat ely; upon asking t he reason for running away, t he applicant could not answer and confessed his guilt .

3. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he cont raband seized in t he present case is charas and if it is in t he shape of st icks t hen it is im port ant t hat sam pling m ust be done from each port ion ot herwise t he port ions, which are left out for sam pling, m ay not be included in t he final result relat ing t o t he weight of t he cont raband in t he present case, which is charas.

4. Learned counsel for t he applicant has placed reliance on t he decision t aken by t he Coordinat e Bench in BA1 No.171 of 2023 Awt ar Singh vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand. Para 8 & 9 of t he j udgm ent are reproduced hereinbelow: - I nvent ory Report also doubt s t he “ 8. The prosecut ion case because it records t he case crim e num ber. I f it was subsequent ly added, who added it ?

9. I n addit ion t o it , t he sam ple has been t aken random ly and not from each of t he st rips. How can it be said t he represent at ive sam ple?

5. Apart from t he above cont ent ion, learned counsel for t he applicant st ressed upon a t hat as per t he prosecut ion case aft er t he search and seizure t he applicant / accused was arrest ed on t he spot and arrest m em o was also prepared t hereaft er but surprisingly before t he applicant / accused was t aken t o t he concerned police st at ion, t he arrest m em o, which was prepared on t he spot when applicant was arrest ed, t here is a m ent ion of FI R.

6. I t is st at ed t hat how can an FI R be regist ered before arrest , search and seizure of t he cont raband. This fault in t he present m at t er regarding search, seizure and arrest vit iat es t he very m andat ory procedure t hat have been provided in t he N.D.P.A. Act . Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant is languishing in j ail since 03.09.2024 and he m ay be enlarged on bail.

7. Learned St at e Counsel has st rongly opposed t he bail applicat ion st at ing t herein t hat com pliance of Sect ion 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has been com plied wit h and if t here are any discrepancies in t he invent ory report t hat will not weight as an advant age favour of t he applicant considerat ion of t he bail. The cont raband, so seized from t he applicant , is m ore t han a com m ercial quant it y and it is serious offence, t herefore bail should not be grant ed.

8. Aft er hearing t he learned counsel for t he part ies and perusal of t he record at t he out set , I find sufficient grounds t o grant t he bail. First ly, at t he out set because case crim e num ber has been m ent ioned in t he arrest m em o i.e. Ex.- P2 Annexure 2 t o t he supplem ent ary affidavit , which as per procedure can only be m ent ioned aft er t he first inform at ion report is lodged. The dat e and t im e of arrest as recorded in Ex.P2 is on 24.11.2023 at 23: 30, place of incident Ram pur Road near Nanaksar Gurudwara and as per t he FI R t he inform at ion received at t he police st at ion is recorded on 25.11.20223 at 02: 59 t he t im e of occurrence is not ed as 24.11.2023. Therefore, t his cannot be t erm ed as m erely a procedural or t ypographical error but m ay ot herwise cast e a st rong doubt in t he present m at t er. This alone is sufficient for grant of bail.

9. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant - Manoj Singh Rawat be released on bail on execut ing a personal bond and t wo reliable suret ies of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of court concerned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 28.03.2025 Art i ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH