Presence of FIR number on pre-registration recovery documents entitles accused to grant of bail.

On September 25, 2025, the applicant was apprehended by police during a routine check at Police Station Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The prosecution alleged a recovery of 300 tablets of Buprenorphine and Naloxone (IP Vernor-N) and 20 Diazepam injections from the applicant's possession.

Consequently, FIR/Case Crime No. 315 of 2025 was registered under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The applicant was apprehended at approximately 19:20 hours, but the FIR was lodged at 22:08 hours.

The applicant moved for bail, contending that the arrest memo and inventory report—allegedly prepared at the spot prior to the registration of the FIR—unexplainably bore the FIR number.

The applicant has been in custody since September 26, 2025, and has no previous criminal history.

1. Whether the unexplained appearance of the FIR number on the arrest memo and inventory report, allegedly prepared prior to the lodging of the FIR, creates sufficient doubt regarding the prosecution's case to warrant the grant of bail.

2. Whether there was non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, during the search and seizure.

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically Section 8 (prohibition of certain operations) and Section 22 (punishment for psychotropic substances).

It also considered the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 50 regarding search of persons and Section 52-A regarding the preparation of inventory and certification of samples before a Magistrate.

Furthermore, the court relied on the evidentiary principle that unexplained discrepancies in the sequence of documentation (specifically the pre-lodging mention of an FIR number on spot documents) cast doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution's narrative.

The court examined the discrepancy between the time of the alleged recovery and the formal registration of the FIR. While the applicant was apprehended at 19:20 hours and the FIR was lodged at 22:08 hours, the arrest memo and inventory report—purportedly prepared at the spot during the interim—already contained the FIR number.

The Court noted that the State counsel, despite previous directions to produce General Diary (G.D.) entries, failed to provide any explanation for how the FIR number appeared on documents created before the FIR was registered.

This procedural anomaly, combined with the lack of independent public witnesses despite the recovery occurring in a public place, led the court to conclude that the sequence of events projected by the prosecution was doubtful.

The court found that these unexplained discrepancies, alongside the applicant’s clean criminal record and the likely duration of the trial, justified the grant of bail.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties, with additional conditions including: (a) not leaving the country without permission, (b) cooperating with the investigation, (c) not tampering with evidence, and (d) surrendering his passport.

The court clarified that bail would be liable for cancellation upon any violation of these conditions.