Arrest Memo Bearing FIR Number Before Registration Of FIR Renders Arrest Prima Facie Illegal: Uttarakhand HC In NDPS Case

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after observing that the arrest memo and inventory report, though purportedly prepared prior to registration of the FIR, already bore the FIR number. The Court held that mention of an FIR number which did not exist at the time of arrest renders the documentation, search and seizure “inherently suspicious” and indicates fabrication or manipulation of official record.

The Court further observed that the circumstances suggested either that the FIR had actually been registered earlier but shown later in the arrest memo and inventory report, or that the documents were prepared after registration of the FIR and falsely back dated. In either situation, according to the Court, the procedural sanctity mandated under the NDPS Act stands undermined. The court thus classified the arrest as prima facie illegal.

Justice Ashish Naithani was dealing with a bail application filed by an accused arrested in connection with offences under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.  

According to the prosecution, the applicant was intercepted by a police team during regular crime control and checking duty while riding a motorcycle. It was alleged that after being informed of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the bag carried by him was searched and 1.042 kilograms of smack was recovered from his possession.

The FIR further recorded that the motorcycle being driven by the applicant belonged to another person and that the applicant was unable to produce documents relating to the vehicle or even a valid driving licence, following which proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act were also initiated.  

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated and that the alleged contraband was in fact lifted from his godown and not recovered from the spot in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

Reliance was placed on Section 58 of the NDPS Act, which provides punishment where search, seizure, detention or arrest is carried out vexatiously and unnecessarily without reasonable ground or suspicion. On this basis, it was argued that the present case was nothing but a vexatious seizure and arrest built up against the applicant.

The applicant further argued that after his arrest, the arrest memo and inventory report were prepared at the spot and even prior to registration of the FIR, yet both documents already contained the FIR number. It was contended that since a crime number can only exist after registration of the FIR, the documentation was clearly ante time and subsequently prepared and back-dated.

According to the applicant, mention of the FIR number in documents allegedly prepared before registration of the FIR clearly indicated fabrication or manipulation of official record.  

The State opposed the bail application contending that there was no fabrication and no material to show that the applicant had been vexatiously arrested or illegally searched.

It was further submitted that though the FIR number appeared in the arrest memo and inventory report, the entry had subsequently been made by pen after registration of the FIR. The State also referred to the criminal history of the applicant and contended that there was no police enmity which could suggest false implication.  

After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the Court observed that “the arrest memo and inventory report, though purportedly prepared prior to registration of the FIR, and curiously bears the FIR number, this renders the documentation, search and seizure inherently suspicious and indicative of being ante time and subsequently prepared and back dated”.

The Court further observed that “the arrest becomes prima facie illegal as it suggests that FIR number was actually registered earlier but shown later on the arrest memo, and the inventory report, was prepared after the FIR, but falsely back dated. In both situations, undermine the procedural sanctity mandated under the NDPS Act”.

Consequently, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.  

Case Name: Mursaleen v State of Uttarakhand

Case No.: BA 1st No.325 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order