Presence of F.I.R. Number on Prior Arrest Memo Vitiates Recovery Genuineness, Entitling Accused to Bail

The applicant was apprehended by the police on 20.07.2025 during a routine check. Upon searching a bag carried by the applicant, the police allegedly recovered 1528 grams of charas.

Consequently, F.I.R. No. 127 of 2025 was registered under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Pantnagar.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.07.2025.

The applicant moved the High Court for bail, arguing false implication, non-compliance with statutory safeguards, and citing the grounds of parity as a co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the discrepancy regarding the mention of the F.I.R. number on the arrest memo, allegedly prepared prior to the registration of the F.I.R., vitiates the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity and lack of criminal antecedents.

The court primarily applied Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prohibit the possession and trafficking of cannabis.

It considered Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the conditions under which a search of a person shall be conducted.

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the evidentiary requirement that the recovery process must be transparent and free from material procedural lapses.

The court examined the timeline of the investigation provided by the prosecution and noted a material discrepancy: the arrest memo, which was purportedly prepared at the spot before the F.I.R. was lodged, already contained the F.I.R. number.

The State counsel could not provide a plausible explanation or a corresponding General Diary (G.D.) entry to justify this.

The court reasoned that such an anomaly creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the recovery and the fairness of the investigative process.

Additionally, the court took into account that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that a co-accused had been granted bail by a coordinate bench on 04.11.2025, satisfying the rule of parity.

The 1st bail application was allowed subject to the execution of a personal bond and two reliable sureties, with specific conditions imposed including cooperation with the investigation and surrender of passport.

The court cautioned that the bail would be liable for cancellation in the event of any violation of these conditions.