Abdul Shami vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Mahra, J

Applicant Abdul Shami, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

According to the prosecution case, on 10.04.2025, during the search of the accused by the police party, 40 injections of Restigestic (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection IP, 2 ml) were recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is contended that no inventory was prepared at the spot, nor is there any inventory certificate prepared or certified by the Magistrate. Consequently, the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, inasmuch as the inventory has not been certified in terms of Form 4, Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.04.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that although Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for grant of bail, the Court must also consider whether there are serious procedural lapses affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.

Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application.

In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.