Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To Woman In 294-Tablet NDPS Case, Citing FIR Number On Memos Allegedly Prepared Before FIR

The applicant sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that 294 Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual tablets, weighing 26.46 grams, were recovered from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant argued that the search-related communication under Section 50 was made jointly to her and a co-accused, rather than separately, and that the inventory report and arrest memo bore the FIR number despite allegedly having been prepared before the FIR was registered.

She also submitted that she had no criminal history and had been in custody since 16 May 2026.

The State opposed bail.

The case involved Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act and the search safeguard under Section 50.

Section 37 imposes stringent twin conditions for bail in applicable NDPS cases.

As the Court stated, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, recognizes that procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions may be material to bail; despite Section 37’s restrictions, the Court must consider whether serious procedural lapses may undermine the credibility of the prosecution case.

The Court considered the applicant’s custody, the apparent discrepancy that the inventory report and arrest memo allegedly bore an FIR number despite purportedly having been prepared before the FIR’s registration, and the absence of separate communication to the applicant regarding the search safeguard.

It found these matters to be arguable procedural irregularities creating doubt that required scrutiny at trial.

Applying the principle stated in Kashif, the Court held that these lapses were relevant to bail even in light of Section 37’s rigours.

The Court made no final determination on the merits.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring regular attendance at trial without unnecessary adjournments, no inducement, threat, or promise to persons acquainted with the case, and no departure from India without prior permission of the trial court.

The informant may seek cancellation if the applicant misuses or violates the conditions.