Yusuf Ansari Alias Guddu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The applicant- Yusuf Ansari alias Guddu is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in Case Crime No. 166 of 2025, registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

According to the First Information Report dated 27.05.2025, the applicant was searched on suspicion. The police recovered 140 gm heroin from his possession. He was arrested.

Heard Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate, contended that the alleged contraband was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. The alleged recovery was planted. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. He has no criminal antecedents, and, the quantity of the alleged recovered contraband does not fall under the category of the commercial quantity.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally. However, he submitted on instructions that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

As per Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gm of heroin is small quantity and greater than 250 gm is commercial quantity (Entry No.56).

The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Yusuf Ansari alias Guddu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.