State of Uttarakhand v. Mr.Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the

presently lodged in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2024, registered at Police Station Khansyu, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. According to the FIR lodged on 02.01.2024, it was alleged that on the same date at about 19:01 hours, a police patrolling team intercepted the Applicant, who was allegedly found carrying a suspected contraband substance. On noticing the police personnel, the Applicant is stated to have attempted to flee but was apprehended at around 20:30 hours. Upon search, it is alleged that 1.534 kilograms of charas was recovered from his possession, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. Consequent to the alleged recovery, the Applicant was arrested on

02.01.2024, and the seized material was taken into custody. The samples were allegedly drawn, sealed, and thereafter forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, whereupon the chemical analysis report confirmed the seized substance to be charas.

4. The Applicant has been in custody since 03.01.2024 and has previously approached this Court on three occasions. His first, second, and third bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated

26.03.2025, 05.06.2025, and 07.07.2025, respectively.

5. In the present, fourth bail application, the Applicant seeks enlargement on the ground of prolonged incarceration of more than one year and eight months, coupled with the contention that no material prosecution witness has been examined to date.

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

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated, is a young first-time offender with no criminal history, and the alleged recovery is doubtful due to the absence of independent witnesses, despite the location being a public area. It was argued that there are inconsistencies in the timing of arrest and FIR registration, and that the arrest memo bearing the FIR number suggests procedural fabrication.

8. It was further submitted that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, and no lawful certification was obtained at the time of seizure. The Applicant contends that the initial conclusions that the substance was Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. charas were speculative prior to the FSL report, which was received only later.

9. It was lastly submitted that the Applicant has been in custody for more than one year and eight months, and no prosecution witness has been examined thus far, violating his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Reliance was placed on Tajmul Sk v. State of West Bengal, SCC 3047 of 2024, where bail was granted due to long incarceration and stagnation of trial proceedings.

10. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the application, submitting that the alleged recovery of 1.534 kilograms of charas falls within the definition of “commercial quantity,” thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes a higher threshold for the grant of bail.

11. It was argued that the seizure was duly conducted, samples were taken and sealed under proper supervision, and the FSL report confirms that the contraband was charas. The State submitted that non- association of independent witnesses or minor procedural objections cannot be grounds for bail at this stage, as such issues are matters for trial.

12. It was further submitted that prolonged incarceration alone does not override the statutory embargo under Section 37, and the Applicant has failed to show reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty or that he will not commit any offence if released. Therefore, it was prayed that the present bail application be rejected.

13. This Court observes that the Applicant stands accused of an offence under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act on the basis of an Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. alleged recovery of 1.534 kilograms of charas. The FSL report indicates that the seized substance is charas. The record further reflects that the seized material was produced before the learned Special Judge (NDPS) and samples were then forwarded for chemical examination. These factual features are relevant to assess the present bail prayer at the threshold stage.

14. The quantity involved is, on prima facie reckoning, commercial. In matters involving commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes a statutory restriction upon the grant of bail. The Court must be satisfied on twin considerations. First, there should be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Second, the Court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These are additional and cumulative conditions that operate over and above the general considerations governing bail.

15. At this stage, the Court does not undertake a mini-trial. The relevant test is whether the material presently available discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. The FIR narrates interception, pursuit, apprehension, and recovery.

16. The seizure was followed by the drawal and dispatch of the samples, and the FSL report, on the face of it, supports the State’s case as to the nature of the contraband.

17. On the present record, and without embarking upon an exhaustive evidentiary analysis, the Court is unable to record satisfaction that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence within the meaning of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

18. The Applicant has urged several procedural objections, including alleged non-association of independent witnesses and non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, and Section 100 Cr.P.C. These contentions will be considered on the strength of the evidence led during the trial.

19. At the bail stage, such issues generally raise disputed factual questions and require scrutiny of witnesses, documents, and the chain of custody in detail. The presence of a facially valid FSL report and the indication that the seized material was placed before the Special Judge before dispatch weigh against recording a prima facie finding of non- guilt at this juncture.

20. The plea of prolonged incarceration has been pressed with emphasis. The Applicant has been in custody since early January 2024, and there is a stated lack of progress in the trial in terms of examination of prosecution witnesses. The right to a speedy trial is a valuable consideration. However, in cases governed by Section 37, mere passage of time does not, by itself, relax the statutory rigour. The Court must still be satisfied on the twin requirements.

21. The Court has also considered the likelihood of the Applicant committing an offence while on bail, which is the second limb of Section 37. The nature of the accusation, the quantity involved, and the role attributed to the Applicant are relevant. On a prima facie view, there is nothing on record that would enable the Court to affirmatively conclude that the Applicant is not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. In the absence of such satisfaction, the statutory bar remains operative. Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.

22. It is also relevant that earlier bail applications of the Applicant have been rejected by this Court on 26.03.2025, 05.06.2025, and

07.07.2025. The present application is premised substantially on the ground of long incarceration. While this aspect has been duly weighed, it does not, in the facts presently available, displace the embargo of Section 37 or provide reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty.

23. Having regard to the nature and quantity of the contraband, the confirming FSL report, the indication of production before the Special Judge prior to dispatch of samples, and the absence of material that would furnish reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, this Court finds that the statutory mandate under Section 37 is not satisfied. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussion, the fourth bail application stands rejected. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. Dated:19.09.2025 NR (Ashish Naithani, J.) Fourth Bail Application No. 14 of 2025-----------Rajendra Mewari @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.