High CourtsSingle Bench

Rehman vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 October 2025 · Citation: (2025) 10 UK CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<li>Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 &mdash; Section 2(viia), 2(xxiiia), 8, 21, 29</li>
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2030 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 388 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The applicant- Rehman is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in Case Crime No.391 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

2.

According to the First Information Report dated 08.10.2025, two persons including the present applicant were coming on a motorcycle on 08.10.2025. The police tried to stop them. They tried to ran away after seeing the police. The police apprehended the applicant. He had a polythene in his hand. The police found 30 gm smack in the said polythene. He was arrested.

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.

4.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated by the police. The alleged smack was not recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery was false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery from the possession of the applicant. This fact also makes the story of the police doubtful. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, the alleged recovered smack does not fall under the category of the commercial quantity.

5.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally.

6.

As per Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gm of heroin is small quantity and greater than 250 gm is commercial quantity (Entry No.56).

7.

The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

8.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9.

The Bail Application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant – Rehman be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.