Arrest Memo Bearing FIR Number Before FIR Was Lodged Renders NDPS Seizure Suspicious: Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail
The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the arrest memo and inventory report bore an FIR number that could not have existed at the time they were purportedly prepared.
Justice Ashish Naithani, sitting singly at the High Court of Uttarakhand, granted regular bail on 27 April 2026 to Mursaleen, accused in FIR No. 274 of 2025 under Sections 8, 21, and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. The court found that the arrest memo and inventory report, both purportedly prepared before the FIR was lodged, nonetheless bore the FIR number, a procedural impossibility that rendered the documentation, search, and seizure inherently suspicious. The finding went to the procedural sanctity that the NDPS Act mandates, and it was sufficient to make out a case for bail.
What the Police Alleged
According to the FIR, on 5 July 2025 a police team on routine crime-control duty intercepted Mursaleen, who was riding a black Super Splendour Plus motorcycle bearing registration number UP12BQ6728. The applicant is said to have confessed to carrying a contraband — smack — inside a shoulder bag.
When the registration number was checked through an E-challan machine, the motorcycle turned out to belong to one Jabeer, son of Jabbar, a resident of Village Jola, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Mursaleen could produce neither the vehicle's documents nor a valid driving licence, and was booked under the Motor Vehicles Act as well.
The police then conveyed the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure, searched the bag, and recovered 1.042 kilograms of smack. The case was registered under Sections 8, 21, and 60 of the NDPS Act.
Arguments Raised for Bail
Mr. Abhishek Verma, counsel for Mursaleen, advanced two distinct grounds before the court.
The first was false implication. Counsel contended that the contraband was not recovered from the spot but had been lifted from the applicant's godown and planted. Referring to Section 58 of the NDPS Act, which penalises vexatious and unnecessary searches, seizures, detentions, and arrests made without reasonable ground, counsel argued that the entire seizure and arrest were fabricated.
The second ground was documentary manipulation. Counsel pointed out that the arrest memo and inventory report, both of which are prepared at the time of arrest and therefore necessarily before the FIR is registered, contained the FIR number. Since a crime number can only come into existence after the FIR is lodged, its presence in documents that predate the FIR indicated that those documents were prepared later but shown to have been made earlier, in other words, ante-dated.
State's Response
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, refuted both submissions. He denied any fabrication and argued there was no material to show that the arrest or seizure was vexatious or illegal. He also pointed to the applicant's criminal history and a series of prior cases, contending there was no police enmity that could explain a false implication.
On the FIR number appearing in the pre-FIR documents, the State's explanation was that the entry of the FIR number had been made by pen, and that such an entry could only have been made after the FIR was registered. The State therefore maintained it was wrong to say the crime number was mentioned prior to lodging of the FIR.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Naithani did not accept the State's explanation. The court observed that the arrest memo and inventory report were purportedly prepared before the FIR was registered, yet both documents curiously bore the FIR number. The court held that this rendered the documentation, search, and seizure “inherently suspicious and inductive it being ante time and subsequently prepared and back dated.”
The court then identified two possible scenarios, both of which it found damaging to the prosecution's case. Either the FIR number was registered earlier than shown, meaning the FIR was actually lodged before the arrest but the sequence was concealed, or the arrest memo and inventory report were prepared after the FIR but falsely back-dated to appear contemporaneous with the arrest. In either scenario, the court found that the procedural sanctity mandated under the NDPS Act was undermined.
On that basis, the court concluded that the arrest was prima facie illegal. The State's submission that the pen entry could only have been made post-registration did not displace the court's concern; if anything, it reinforced the finding that the documents were completed after the FIR, not before.
The court did not separately address the Section 58 argument about vexatious arrest in detail, nor did it make a finding on the godown allegation. The ante-dating of official records was sufficient to make out a case for bail on the overall facts and circumstances.
Outcome
Bail Application No. 325 of 2026 was allowed. Justice Naithani directed that Mursaleen be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The applicant was directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings and not to misuse the liberty granted to him.
The bail application had been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is the provision governing regular bail applications before the High Court under the new criminal procedure code.