State ofUttarakhand v. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

FIR No. 0165 of 2024 dated 19 October 2024, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. The Applicant has remained in continuous judicial custody since 20 October 2024. The first bail application was dismissed on 03 April 2025 and the second on 12 August 2025.

2. After dismissal of the earlier applications, charges were framed on 30 April 2025. The case was thereafter fixed for prosecution evidence on 28 May 2025. The record reflects that on every date fixed for evidence between 28 May 2025 and 17 November 2025, no prosecution witness was produced and adjournments were sought. The matter now stands posted for prosecution evidence on 02 December

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that after framing of charges, the prosecution has not examined even a single witness despite the matter having been listed for evidence on seven 3rd Bail Application No. 75 of 2025, Shanu Vs State of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J. consecutive dates. It was urged that the delay is entirely attributable to the prosecution and not to the Applicant, who has remained in custody throughout.

4. It was further submitted that the original charge sheet did not contain the chemical examination report and was, therefore, incomplete. According to counsel, the chemical analysis is the core scientific basis of the allegation, and the absence of this document at the time of filing of the charge sheet caused serious prejudice to the Applicant. The supplementary filing of the report at a later stage cannot undo the disadvantage suffered by the Applicant during the period when the prosecution itself did not possess the complete material necessary for a fair trial.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant also pointed to certain chronological inconsistencies in the seizure memo, arrest memo and related documents, submitting that these irregularities cast doubt on the initial preparation and provenance of the record. While these matters may ultimately be tested during trial, the inconsistencies form part of the circumstances warranting bail.

6. It was argued that no independent public witness was associated despite the alleged recovery having occurred at a publicly accessible location. The entire case rests on police testimony, which significantly reduces any possibility of the Applicant influencing witnesses.

7. Learned counsel emphasised that the Applicant has been in custody for more than one year and four months, has no criminal antecedents and has strong social roots. The continuation of pre trialdetention for such a long period, without commencement of evidence, was submitted to be contrary to Article 21.

8. Learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecution intends to examine all its witnesses. It was submitted that the delay occurred for reasons beyond control and that the prosecution 3rd Bail Application No. 75 of 2025, Shanu Vs State of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J. will make efforts to produce witnesses on the next date fixed. The seriousness of the allegations was emphasised.

10. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The sequence of dates placed on record clearly shows that after the charges were framed on 30 April 2025, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence on 28 May 2025. On every date thereafter, namely 28 May 2025, 26 June 2025, 21 July 2025, 28 August 2025, 23 September 2025, 31 October 2025 and 17 November 2025, no prosecution witness was produced. Each of these dates ended in an adjournment. Thus, more than two hundred days after the framing of charges, the prosecution has not commenced its evidence. The Applicant has been in custody throughout this period.

11. Such prolonged stagnation in the trial, when entirely attributable to the inability of the prosecution to produce its own witnesses, raises serious concerns about the fairness and reasonableness of continued detention. The constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial cannot be overlooked. Pre trial incarceration cannot become punitive.

12. There is another aspect of significance. The charge sheet was filed without the chemical examination report (FSL Report). This report is not an ancillary or optional document. It is the primary scientific foundation of the allegation. When the charge sheet is submitted without it, the accused is left without a complete understanding of the material against him.

13. The supplementary filing of the report at a later date does not erase the prejudice that has already occurred. For a considerable period, the prosecution itself lacked the complete set of materials necessary for meaningful progress of the case. This defect, at the initial stage of filing of the police report, goes to the root of procedural fairness.

14. The record also reveals certain chronological inconsistencies in the seizure documents and the arrest memo, including the presence of 3rd Bail Application No. 75 of 2025, Shanu Vs State of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. FIR details on documents purportedly prepared before the formal registration of the FIR. These matters will be evaluated during the trial but they add weight to the need for careful scrutiny of the prosecution record and diminish the justification for indefinite pre trial detention.

15. No independent witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery. The witnesses are primarily police officials. In such a situation, the risk of the Applicant influencing the prosecution case is minimal.

16. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody for a period exceeding one year and four months. Having regard to the lack of progress in the trial and the nature of the lapses in the initial police report, further detention of the Applicant would not be consistent with constitutional principles of fairness and liberty.

17. This Court is of the view that the concerns of the prosecution can be appropriately safeguarded by imposing suitable conditions. The bail application is allowed. ORDER Let the Applicant, Shanu, be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 0165 of 2024, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Dated:28.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) 3rd Bail Application No. 75 of 2025, Shanu Vs State of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J.