WPCRL/1188/2026 of SAAHIB Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 30 June 2026

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

WPCRL/1188/2026

Saahib ……..Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand ……..Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Mr. Pradeep Lohan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. 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 Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0111 of 2026 dated 04.04.2026, registered under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to arrest or otherwise harass the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been implicated solely on the basis of the confessional statement allegedly made by the co- accused, from whom 10.87 grams of smack is stated to have been recovered.

6. He would further submit that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S., have not been complied with by the investigating agency, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings; thus, the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has rightly been implicated during the course of investigation after due compliance with the provisions of the Act; that, the alleged recovery of 10.87 grams of smack has been effected in connection with the petitioner and the co-accuse; that, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 may be granted to enable the petitioner to surrender before the competent court.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. at this stage. However, considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is provided 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.

10. 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.

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

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

(Alok Mahra, J.)

30.06.2026 Mamta