Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/582/2026 of SINTU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 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 No. 582 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned
2026:UHC:4669
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1 No. 582 of 2026
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. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl Advocate General with Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned AGA for the State.
3. Present applicant Sintu, S/o Rishipal praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 10.11.2025, bearing FIR No. 0491 of 2025, P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant along with one Sanjeet have been implicated for the offences punishable offences 8/22 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no substantial compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act and even the procedure as prescribed under Section 41, 42, 52, 52A, 55 and 57 has not been followed and the police intercepted the applicant at about 11 O clock but the FIR was lodged at a belated stage at 23.01 hours and the delay is not explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2025, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
5. The prosecution filed the counter affidavit and submits that the recovery is a chance recovery, therefore, Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with and during search and seizure the videography was also conducted. It is further submitted that the recovery of Narcotic Substance is much above the commercial quantity and recovery memo, consent letter, inventory
2026:UHC:4669 report was also prepared. The inventory report is also placed on record which is certified by the Magistrate concerned on 11.11.2025 though by putting endorsement of seen, arrest memo is also enclosed. At this juncture, the details of criminal antecedent of the applicant have also been disclosed on perusal of which as many as there are 11 cases against the applicant that too only at P.S. Bhadrabad District Haridwar, from which it also reveals that the present applicant is indulge in criminal activity since 2016.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the recovery memo as well as the inventory, admittedly the recovered Narcotic Substance is the commercial one therefore, rider of Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into the way and in terms of Section 37 of NDPS Act twin condition has to be fulfilled. In the present case the inventory was prepared which was also certified and even otherwise the applicant have a criminal antecedent of 11 cases and indulge in criminal activities since 2016, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail particularly due to the rider of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
10.06.2026 Nahid