The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to two individuals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) after identifying a significant discrepancy in police documentation. Some documents bore the FIR number before the FIR was officially registered, according to the court.
Case Background
Justice Ashish Naithani delivered a common order for Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh, who were implicated in the same case. The police alleged that on January 5, 2026, near Pithoragarh, they apprehended the two men and recovered 2 kilograms of charas from each. This quantity qualifies as a commercial amount under the NDPS Act, making bail more difficult to obtain.
The lower court rejected their bail pleas, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.
Arguments by the Defense
Counsel for the accused argued that they were falsely implicated and the entire case hinged on the recovery. They pointed out that the inventory report and arrest memo, purportedly prepared at the scene before the FIR was filed, already contained the FIR number. This, they contended, was not a minor clerical error but a fundamental flaw affecting the case's foundation.
Additional arguments included the lack of independent witnesses for a recovery made in a public place, inconsistencies in the timing of documents, and a request for CCTV footage from the area, which they believed would support their alibi.
State's Opposition
The state opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the recovered drugs, which triggers stricter bail provisions under the law. It maintained that the recovery process was lawful and supported by forensic lab reports. The state also argued that rules regarding personal body searches were inapplicable since the drugs were found in bags, not on the persons. It denied allegations of deleted CCTV footage.
Court's Observations and Order
Justice Naithani acknowledged the large quantity involved but focused on the procedural irregularity. He stated that the inventory report and arrest memo are crucial on-the-spot records of the search, recovery, and arrest. Since these documents were supposedly created before the FIR but already carried the FIR number, the court found a timeline mismatch, as an FIR number could not exist at that stage.
The court emphasized that this was not a routine oversight but raised serious doubts about the sequence of events as claimed by the police. Even without considering other defense arguments, this discrepancy alone undermined the credibility of the recovery process.
Consequently, the court allowed both bail applications, directing that Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of a matching amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
