High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Ahuja vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 UK CK 0575

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Mahra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 21, 29, 37
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No.7 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

9 paragraphs · 316 words

Alok Mahra, J

1.

Applicant Sanjay Ahuja, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/29 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Doiwala, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3.

According to the prosecution case, on 23.08.2024 at 17:30 hours, during the personal search of the accused by the police party at Haridwar Road Kuanchala, Harrawala, opposite Vidlas River Valley, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Doiwala, 263 grams of illegal smack was recovered from his possession in a foil.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter; that, no inventory was prepared at the spot, nor is there any certificate of inventory prepared or certified by the Magistrate. She further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is in judicial custody since 23.08.2024.

5.

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.

6.

Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant was apprehended with commercial quantity contraband. He, however, submits on the basis of instructions received from the Investigating Officer that inventory was not prepared at the spot.

7.

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.

8.

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.