GOVIND SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010174902026

2026:UHC:10058

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures


BA1/1645/2026
Govind Singh
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola and Mr.
Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. The present bail application has been
filed by the applicant, who is in judicial
custody in connection with FIR No. 0048 of
2026, registered at Police Station Kapkot,
District Bageshwar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as the "N.D.P.S. Act").
3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned State Counsel and
perused the record.
4. As per the prosecution story, the
applicant and the co-accused were arrested
at the spot along with the alleged
contraband, which was recovered from a
carry bag carried on the shoulder of the co-
accused. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case, inasmuch
as no contraband has been recovered from
his conscious possession. It is further
contended that since the alleged
contraband was recovered from the
possession of the other co-accused, the
prosecution has failed to establish the
conscious possession of the applicant. It is
further submitted that, as per the recovery
memo, the inventory was prepared at the

UKHC010174902026

2026:UHC:10058

spot and the applicant, along with the co-
accused, was arrested at 21:20 hours,
whereas the F.I.R. was registered on the
following day at 2:40 hours, i.e., after a
lapse of more than five hours from the time
of preparation of the inventory. However,
the inventory report bears the F.I.R./Case
Crime Number, despite the fact that the
F.I.R. had not been registered at the time of
its preparation. Thus, it is contended that
the presence of the F.I.R. number in the
inventory report and the arrest memo,
allegedly prepared prior to the registration
of the F.I.R., renders the prosecution
version doubtful. Learned counsel further
submits that the applicant has no criminal
history.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau vs. Kashif , reported in (2024) 11
SCC 372, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the relevance of
procedural irregularities and non-
compliance with the mandatory provisions
of the N.D.P.S. Act while adjudicating bail
applications. It is submitted that although
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act prescribes
stringent twin conditions for the grant of
bail, the Court is nevertheless required to
examine whether procedural lapses exist
which may have a bearing on the credibility
of the prosecution case.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that, in the event of being
enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not
misuse the liberty so granted and shall
furnish reliable sureties to the satisfaction
of the Court concerned.
7. Learned State Counsel has
vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the material available
on record, this Court finds that the

UKHC010174902026

2026:UHC:10058

applicant is in judicial custody. Prima facie,
certain arguable procedural irregularities
appear to exist in the prosecution case,
inasmuch as the inventory report and the
arrest memo, which are stated to have been
prepared prior to the registration of the
F.I.R., bear the F.I.R./Case Crime Number.
This circumstance raises a question which
requires proper scrutiny during the course
of trial.
9. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau vs. Kashif (supra), procedural
irregularities having a bearing on the
credibility of the prosecution case are
relevant considerations while examining a
bail application, even in cases governed by
the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
10. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the final merits of the case, this
Court is of the considered view that the
applicant has made out a case for grant of
bail at this stage.
11. The bail application is, accordingly,
allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on bail
upon executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The applicant shall regularly attend the
proceedings before the trial court and shall
not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such
person from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India
without prior permission of the trial court.
13. It is clarified that, in the event of
misuse or violation of any of the conditions

UKHC010174902026

2026:UHC:10058

imposed hereinabove, the complainant/
informant shall be at liberty to move an
appropriate application before the
competent court seeking cancellation of the
applicant's bail.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
02-11-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fb d40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B52 83D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.11.02 18:03:19 +05'30'