Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/1199/2026 of ABDUL RAHMAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 1 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1199/2026 Abdul Rahman --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan,

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPCRL/1199/2026 Abdul Rahman --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. By means of the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 256 of 2026 dated 21.05.2026, registered under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to arrest or otherwise harass him in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was neither apprehended at the spot nor was any contraband recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the implication of the petitioner rests solely upon the confessional statement of the co-accused, who was arrested at the spot. According to the learned counsel, the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose any independent material, seizure, or recovery connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, and therefore, no prima facie case under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is made out against him. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has been rightly implicated during the course of investigation after due compliance with the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. require thorough investigation and that no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, he is willing to surrender before the court concerned and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that limited protection be granted to enable the petitioner to surrender before the competent court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall surrender before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and move an appropriate application for bail, which shall be considered and decided by the court concerned strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits.

7. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to surrender before the court concerned within the aforesaid period, the protection granted by this order, if any, shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court.

8. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 01-07-2026 SB

SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd4 0bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D 205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.07.01 16:02:04 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead