Facts
The applicant was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
Source reference: para. 3The prosecution alleged that, during routine checking on 3 June 2026, police recovered 109 grams of charas from the applicant and 1 kilogram and 43 grams from a co-accused.
Source reference: para. 3, para. 5The applicant sought bail, alleging, among other things, non-compliance with the safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act because joint rather than separate consent had allegedly been obtained.
Source reference: paras. 6–7He also relied on his lack of criminal antecedents, the co-accused’s release on bail, his residence in Uttarakhand, and the anticipated delay in trial.
Source reference: paras. 6–7The State opposed bail but filed no counter-affidavit despite opportunities.
Source reference: para. 8Issues
Whether the applicant had made out a case for bail in light of the alleged recovery and the circumstances advanced in support of release.
Source reference: paras. 5–9Whether the applicant’s contention that Section 50 safeguards were not duly observed supported release on bail at this stage.
Source reference: para. 6Law Applied
The prosecution case involved alleged offences under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the NDPS Act; the applicant invoked Section 50 as a safeguard allegedly not observed during the search.
Source reference: paras. 3, 6The Court did not set out or apply a detailed statutory test under Section 50, cite precedent, or explain the operation of any specific NDPS bail restriction.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court considered the alleged recovery of 109 grams of charas from the applicant alongside his personal circumstances and the co-accused’s release on bail.
Source reference: paras. 5, 9It also noted that the State had not filed a counter-affidavit controverting the bail application.
Source reference: paras. 8–9Although the applicant raised a Section 50 compliance issue, the Court did not determine that contention on its merits; it concluded, on the circumstances before it, that the applicant had made out a case for bail, subject to applicable statutory restrictions and conditions.
Source reference: paras. 6, 9–10Holding
The Court allowed the bail application without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Release was conditional on a personal bond and two reliable sureties; not leaving the country without prior permission; appearing before and cooperating with the investigating officer when required; refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses and from criminal activity; and surrendering any passport.
Source reference: para. 10(a)–(e)Bail may be cancelled if the conditions are violated or the liberty is misused.
Source reference: para. 13Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19854
Original Court PDF
SUMIT SINGH CHAMYALvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
