High Court · 2025

H o n ' b l e Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J. 1. Mr. R.S. Sam m al, learned counsel wit h Ms. Sarit a Bisht , learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, learned A.G.A. wit h Ms. Rangoli Purohit , learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. Laxm i 3. Fart yal, W/ o Lalit Fart yal is praying for dat ed 17.10.2025, bearing FI R No. 0037 of 2025, regist ered at P.S. Lohaghat , Dist rict Cham pawat wherein t he present applicant has been im plicat ed for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 8/ 20 of NDPS Act . 4. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant is innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed and t he alleged recovery, as shown, is not hing but plant ed one. He subm it s t hat as per t he recovery m em o it is shown t o be a chance recovery t hough t he recovery has been m ade in a public place, but , t here is no com pliance of Sect ion 43 of t he Act . He subm it s t hat t hough arrest has been shown from t he public place but t here is t he alleged recovery from t he possession of t he applicant and is also no sat isfact ory explanat ion in t his regard in t he arrest m em o. He furt her subm it s t hat also t here is no proper com pliance of Sect ion 50 of t he NDPS Act , since, t he applicant has not been asked t o be searched in t he presence of t he Gazet t ed Officer or t he Magist rat e, t hough, as per recovery t here is no reference t hat t here is any denial from t he applicant t o be independent wit ness t o prove t here is serving furt her subm it s searched before t he Gazet t ed Officer. He furt her subm it s t hat t he invent ory and t he arrest m em o have been prepared at t he spot which are not support ed wit h t he relevant G.D. ent ries and even t here is no subst ant ial com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he Act . He subm it s t hat no ground of arrest has been given t o t he applicant by arrest ing officer which is com plet ely in violat ion of Art icle 22 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, and, as such, arrest of t he applicant is bad in law. Apart from t his he subm it s t hat t he applicant has no previous crim inal ant ecedent and she in a vet erinary depart m ent as a “Anim al Care is also a house wife Assist ant ” and having t wo m inor children aged about 10 t o 12 years and her husband is serving in a Hot el at Delhi and, t herefore, being a lady she is ent it led t o get privilege in t erm s of proviso t o Sect ion 480 of BNSS. is no He subst ant ial com pliance of t he m andat ory provisions of t he Act which it self reveals t hat t here are sufficient ground t hat t he t he said applicant offence, and, t he applicant has no previous crim inal ant ecedent and is serving in vet erinary depart m ent as Anim al Care Assist ant and if she is enlarged on bail t here is no any such likelihood t hat she will com m it any offence while on bail. He subm it s t hat t he alleged cont raband which is shown t o be recovered is com m ercial one and, since, t he condit ions, as st ipulat ed under fulfilled, Sect ion 37 of t herefore, t he applicant deserves for bail. 5. On t he ot her side, Mr. Sharm a, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e vehem ent ly opposed subm it t ing t hat t he alleged cont raband com m ercial one, t herefore, in t erm s of Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act t he applicant furt herm ore since t he Act are applicat ion is shown recovered involved is not t o be t here t hat t he t he t hat t hat t here fairly adm it s crim inal ant ecedent is a chance is no does not deserve for bail. He furt her t he writ t en t he basis of argued, on inst ruct ions, proper t here com pliance of Sect ion 52A of t he NDPS Act and t he invent ory was also prepared, recovery, and, since independent t herefore, wit ness. So far as providing ground of arrest before arrest is concerned a reference of which has been given in para 23 of t he bail applicat ion, Mr. Sharm a subm it s t hat t here is no denial in t he writ t en inst ruct ions, t hough, in t he arrest m em o applicant put her signat ure. About t he learned St at e counsel, as per t he writ t en t he inst ruct ions, applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory. Aft er hearing t he argum ent s of t he 6. learned counsel t he part ies and t aking int o considerat ion t hat adm it t edly t he search was conduct ed in a public independent place and wit ness opport unit y was given t o t he applicant t o be searched before t he Magist rat e concerned, which, prim a facie, reveals t hat t here is no subst ant ial com pliance of m andat ory provisions of t he NDPS Act . I t is also not disput ed t hat applicant being a vet erinary serving depart m ent having t wo m inor children, she is ent it led t o get privilege under Sect ion 480 of BNSS. Thus, t his Court is also of t hat condit ions as st ipulat ed under Sect ion 37 of t he Act are fulfilled, since, t he applicant has no previous crim inal ant ecedent , t herefore, t here is no such possibilit y t hat if t he applicant is enlarged on bail she will m isuse t he bail or com m it t he crim e. 7. Accordingly, wit hout expressing any opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant deserves for bail. furt herm ore lady and t he view is no t here Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is

8. allowed. 9. Let t he applicant Laxm i Fart yal be released on bail on her execut ing a personal bond and furnishing t wo reliable suret ies of t he t o sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. like am ount t he ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 0 7 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Parul