NDPS Accused Gets Bail After Uttarakhand HC Flags FIR Number On Inventory And Arrest Memo Said To Pre-Date Registration

In brief

The question

1. Whether the alleged procedural irregularity—FIR details appearing on the inventory and arrest memo despite their stated preparation before registration of the FIR—supported the grant of bail.

The court held

The Court allowed the bail application.

It also directed

It directed the applicant’s release upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Bail was subject to conditions requiring attendance at trial without unnecessary adjournments, non-interference with witnesses, and prior trial-court permission to leave India.

In the event of misuse or breach of conditions, the complainant or informant may seek cancellation of bail before the competent court.

01Facts

The applicant sought bail while in judicial custody in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Kapkot, Bageshwar, for offences under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

¶ 2

The alleged contraband was recovered from a carry bag carried by a co-accused; the applicant argued that it was not recovered from his conscious possession. He also contended that the inventory and arrest memo, said to have been prepared before the FIR was registered, nevertheless recorded the FIR/Case Crime Number. The FIR was registered at 2:40 a.m., more than five hours after the applicant and co-accused were arrested at 9:20 p.m.

¶ 4

The applicant relied on *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, (2024) 11 SCC 372, and stated that he had no criminal history.

¶ 5

The State opposed bail.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the alleged procedural irregularity—FIR details appearing on the inventory and arrest memo despite their stated preparation before registration of the FIR—supported the grant of bail.

¶ 4, 8–10

ii.2. Whether bail could be granted in light of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, having regard to the asserted procedural irregularities and the applicant’s contention that the contraband was recovered from the co-accused.

¶ 4–5, 8–10

03Law Applied

The application concerned offences under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the NDPS Act.

¶ 2

The Court acknowledged that Section 37 of the Act imposes stringent twin conditions for bail in applicable cases, while relying on *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, (2024) 11 SCC 372, for the proposition that procedural irregularities bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case are relevant considerations in a bail decision. The judgment does not set out or separately analyse the statutory twin conditions.

¶ 5, 9

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20 Section 60 Section 37

04Reasoning

The Court considered the applicant’s submissions alongside the record and found that the inventory report and arrest memo, stated to have been prepared before the FIR’s registration, bore the FIR/Case Crime Number. It regarded this discrepancy as an arguable procedural irregularity requiring scrutiny at trial.

¶ 8

Applying *Kashif*, the Court treated the irregularity as relevant to the prosecution case’s credibility at the bail stage, notwithstanding the stringent bail regime under Section 37. It concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶ 9–10