FIR Number on Pre-Registration Documents Raises Doubt, Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case
Uttarakhand High Court grants bail to two NDPS accused after finding that inventory and arrest memo bore the FIR number before the FIR was registered, casting doubt on recovery proceedings.
Justice Ashish Naithani, sitting singly at the Uttarakhand High Court, granted bail on 14 May 2026 to two accused persons facing trial under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in connection with the alleged recovery of 2 kg of charas each. The court found a material procedural infirmity: the inventory report and arrest memo, which the State claimed were prepared at the spot before the FIR was registered, already bore the FIR/crime number. That inconsistency, the court held, prima facie cast doubt on the chronology and credibility of the recovery proceedings. Even with the higher threshold under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in play, the court found the applicants had made out a case for bail.
The Arrest and the FIR
On 5 January 2026, acting on information received, a police party proceeded to Takana Tiraha/Government Tap in Pithoragarh. The applicants — Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh @ Pirmu — were apprehended at the spot. According to the State, 2 kg of charas was recovered from each of them. The contraband was taken into possession, inventory and recovery proceedings were prepared, samples were drawn, and both applicants were arrested.
FIR No. 02 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Pithoragarh, under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The bail applications filed before the court below were rejected, prompting the present applications before the High Court. Since both applications arose from the same FIR and raised common questions, Justice Naithani decided them by a single common order.
The Procedural Infirmity at the Heart of the Case
Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akshay Joshi, argued that the applicants had been falsely implicated and that the entire State case rested on the alleged recovery. The central argument was specific: the inventory report and the arrest memo, which the State maintained were prepared at the spot prior to registration of the FIR, already bore the FIR/crime number on their face.
The submission was that if the FIR had not yet been registered when those documents were prepared, the FIR number could not have appeared on them. Counsel pressed that this was not a clerical irregularity but went to the root of the recovery proceedings, since the inventory report and arrest memo are foundational documents in any NDPS matter.
Two further grounds were raised. First, the applicants had sought production of CCTV footage, which they said would support their plea that they were elsewhere at the relevant time; the State denied any deletion of footage. Second, the alleged recovery was from a public place, yet no independent witness was associated with the proceedings. Counsel also pointed to discrepancies in the timings and preparation of the documents, and noted that neither applicant had any previous criminal history.
State's Opposition: Commercial Quantity and Section 37
Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. N.S. Kanyal opposed both applications. The State's position was that 2 kg of charas recovered from each applicant constituted commercial quantity, attracting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Under Section 37, bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — a threshold considerably higher than in ordinary criminal matters.
The State further submitted that the recovery proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that the FSL report supported its case. On the question of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the State argued that the provision was not attracted because the recovery was not from the personal search of the applicants but from bags allegedly carried by them.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Naithani acknowledged the commercial quantity and the applicability of Section 37. The court did not dismiss the State's position on that point. What weighed with the court, however, was the procedural infirmity in the recovery documents.
The court observed that the inventory report and arrest memo are not merely formal documents. They constitute the contemporaneous record of the alleged search, recovery and arrest, and form a material part of the foundation of the State's case. The State's own projected sequence was that these documents were prepared at the spot before the FIR was registered. Yet those very documents bore the FIR/crime number.
The court held that “the FIR number could not ordinarily have been available at the stage when such documents are stated to have been prepared.” This inconsistency in the chronology of events was not, in the court's view, something that could be treated as an insignificant or routine irregularity at the bail stage. It prima facie bore upon the manner, timing, and credibility of the preparation of the recovery and arrest documents, and raised a material doubt regarding the sequence of proceedings as projected by the State.
Justice Naithani further held that even setting aside the other grounds raised by the applicants, this procedural infirmity alone was “material enough at this stage to prima facie cast doubt on the sanctity of the recovery proceedings.” The court was careful to frame its findings as prima facie observations appropriate to the bail stage, without pronouncing on the merits of the trial.
Outcome
Both bail applications were allowed. The court directed that Bhawan Singh and Prem Singh be released on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amounts, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.