JASVEER KAUR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010127032026

2026:UHC:10301
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1270/2026


Jasveer Kaur
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.

2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular bail
in F.I.R./Case Crime No.166 of 2026, under
Section 8 & 22 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at
Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh
Nagar.

3. The case of the prosecution is that
applicant was apprehended by the police
party, and from her possession, 294 tablets of
Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual,
weighing 26.46 gms was allegedly recovered.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that applicant has falsely been
implicated in the instant crime and is
languishing in jail since 16.05.2026. He
further submits that, as per recovery memo,
the alleged contraband was recovered from
the dupatta of the applicant and there is no
compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, as
joint communication was given to the
applicant and co-accused regarding their
search before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer,
where as it has to be given separately. He
further submits applicant has no criminal

UKHC010127032026

2026:UHC:10301
history. It is further submitted that a bare
perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the inventory
report and arrest memo was purportedly
prepared on the spot. It is argued that the
inventory report and arrest memo bear the
F.I.R./Case Crime number. Hence, at the
time of preparation of inventory report and
arrest memo, the F.I.R./Case Crime number
was not in existence, which renders the
prosecution version doubtful. Learned
counsel for the applicant has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif,
reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has
been held that procedural irregularities and
non-compliance with mandatory provisions
under the N.D.P.S. Act are material
considerations while adjudicating bail
applications. It was further held that
although Section 37 of the Act prescribes
stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail,
the Court is nonetheless required to examine
whether serious procedural lapses exist
which may undermine the credibility of the
prosecution case. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that in case, the applicant
is granted bail, he will not misuse the same
and will furnish the bail surety as per the
satisfaction of this Court.

5. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and the material on
record, this Court finds that the applicant is
in custody since 16.05.2026. Prima facie,
there appear arguable procedural
irregularities in the prosecution case,
inasmuch as, the inventory report as well as
arrest memo allegedly prepared prior to
registration of the F.I.R. bear the F.I.R./Case
Crime number, which creates doubt requiring
scrutiny during trial. Furthermore, separate
communication was not given to the applicant
regarding her search before Magistrate or
Gazetted Officer. In view of the law laid down
in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif

UKHC010127032026

2026:UHC:10301
(Supra), such lapses are relevant for
considering bail even under the rigours of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion as to the final merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that applicant deserves
bail at this stage.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on
executing personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the
satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the
following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court
regularly, and, she will 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 this case.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India
without any prior permission of the trial
Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant
misuses or violates any of the conditions,
imposed upon him, the complainant/
informant will be free to move the court for
cancellation of bail.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
05.11.2026
Arpan













ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654
45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454
C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.11.05 16:28:27 +05'30'

UKHC010127032026

2026:UHC:10301