Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2168/2025 of MOHD ARIF Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 12 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 BA1/2168/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohni, learned
2026:UHC:4739
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/2168/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohni, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant Mohd. Arif, S/o Akbar Shah is praying for bail in reference FIR dated 21.09.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 144 of 2025, P.S. Pulbhatta, District U.S. Nagar wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 21.09.2025. He submits that in fact there is no substantial compliance of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act, since, inventory was prepared in a very mechanical manner by giving reference of those drugs which are not prohibited under the NDPS Act, and, furthermore the inventory is not certified by the Magistrate concerned strictly as per Rule 8 of 2022 Rules. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. He submits that since twin condition, as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is now fulfilled as applicant has no previous criminal history and the mandatory requirement in terms of Section 52 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail.
5. On the other side, learned A.G.A. submits that whether the inventory so prepared is certified in terms of Section 8 of 2022 Rules or not is not is not so fatal and is the subject matter of the trial, however, this aspect can be looked into while considering the bail application. He further submits that applicant has no previous criminal history.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned
2026:UHC:4739 counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant have no previous criminal history and twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case ,the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Mohd. Arif be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
12.06.2026 Parul