Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To 3 In Alleged 28-Kg Ganja Case, Noting No GD Entry Explained FIR Number On Memos Said To Pre-Date FIR

The applicants were in judicial custody in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

Police allegedly recovered two bags containing 12.5 kg and 15.5 kg of suspected ganja—28 kg in total—from the boot of a car occupied by four persons, including the applicants.

The applicants sought bail, arguing, among other things, that no contraband was recovered from their personal possession, their conscious possession had not been established, no independent witness was associated with the recovery, and the recovery and arrest documents bore an FIR number despite allegedly being prepared before the FIR was registered.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged the applicants’ custody since 6 June 2026 and absence of previous NDPS history; it also conceded that no corresponding General Diary entry was available to explain the FIR-number discrepancy.

The prosecution arose under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act defines “ganja” as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops; the applicants also submitted that the commercial quantity for ganja is 20 kg.

The Court assessed the bail applications by considering the nature of the allegations, the circumstances of the alleged recovery, the contention regarding conscious possession, and the period of custody.

No precedent or express discussion of a statutory bail test is set out in the judgment.

The alleged 28 kg recovery exceeded the commercial-quantity threshold asserted by the applicants, but it was allegedly found in two bags in the car’s boot, not on the applicants’ persons.

The applicants’ connection to the contraband and conscious possession therefore remained matters for trial, as did the circumstances surrounding the recovery.

The Court also took account of the State’s concession that no corresponding General Diary entry was available to explain why documents said to pre-date FIR registration bore the FIR number, as well as the applicants’ custody and the other circumstances raised.

On that combined assessment, the Court found a case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Each applicant was required to execute a personal bond and provide two reliable sureties, refrain from leaving India without prior court permission, cooperate with the investigation, avoid tampering with evidence or witnesses and engaging in criminal activity, and surrender any passport.

Bail may be cancelled for breach of these conditions or misuse of the liberty granted.