The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to two men arrested in a narcotics case after finding a prima facie procedural inconsistency in the prosecution's records. The Court noted that key documents allegedly prepared before the registration of the FIR already contained the FIR number, raising questions about the sequence of events presented by the State.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 02 of 2026 registered at Kotwali Police Station, Pithoragarh, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, police officials acting on information intercepted Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh on January 5, 2026, near Takana Tiraha in Pithoragarh. The State alleged that 2 kilograms of charas was recovered from each accused. Following the alleged recovery, seizure and inventory proceedings were conducted, samples were collected, and both men were arrested.
After their bail pleas were rejected by the trial court, the applicants approached the High Court.
Counsel for the applicants argued that they had been falsely implicated and pointed to what was described as a serious defect in the prosecution's case. It was submitted that the inventory report and arrest memo, which were allegedly prepared before the FIR was registered, already carried the FIR number.
The defence contended that if the FIR had not yet been registered, the number could not have appeared on those documents. It was also argued that no independent witness was associated with the recovery despite the alleged seizure taking place in a public area.
The State opposed the bail applications, stressing that the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The prosecution maintained that the recovery was lawful and supported by forensic evidence.
Justice Ashish Naithani observed that although the Court was mindful of the stringent conditions governing bail in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the procedural issue raised by the applicants required consideration.
The Court noted that the inventory report and arrest memo were not mere formalities but formed an important part of the prosecution's case.
“The inventory report and the arrest memo are not merely formal documents. They constitute the contemporaneous record of the alleged search, recovery and arrest,” the bench observed.
Referring to the documents on record, the Court further noted that they were stated to have been prepared before registration of the FIR, yet they already contained the FIR number.
“The presence of the FIR/crime number on documents stated to be anterior to the registration of the FIR cannot be treated as an insignificant or routine irregularity,” the Court said.
According to the bench, the inconsistency prima facie raised doubts regarding the timing and preparation of the recovery and arrest documents.
Finding the procedural infirmity significant at the bail stage, the High Court held that the applicants had made out a case for grant of bail.
The Court allowed both bail applications and directed that Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhawan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand; connected with Prem Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: BA1 No. 656 of 2026 and BA1 No. 723 of 2026
Judge: Justice Ashish Naithani
Decision Date: May 14, 2026
