FIR Number Allegedly Prepared Before FIR Registration Raises Material Doubt About Recovery: Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail In NDPS Case

The Court observed that such an inconsistency could not be treated as an “insignificant or routine irregularity” and that it prima facie “bears upon the manner, timing and credibility of preparation of the recovery/arrest documents, and raises a material doubt regarding the sequence of proceedings as projected by the State”.

The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, on 5 January 2026, the police received information regarding the accused and proceeded towards the location. The prosecution alleged that both accused were apprehended at the spot and that 2 kilograms of charas was recovered from each of them. Following the alleged recovery, the contraband was taken into possession, inventory and recovery proceedings were conducted, samples were drawn and the accused were arrested. Their applications for bail were subsequently rejected by the court below, leading them to approach the High Court.

It was contended by the accused that they had been falsely implicated and that the entire prosecution case rested upon the alleged recovery. It was argued that the inventory report and arrest memo, which the prosecution claimed had been prepared at the spot before registration of the FIR, already contained the FIR number. According to the accused, if the FIR had not yet been registered at that stage, there was no plausible explanation for the presence of the FIR number on those documents. It was further submitted that the discrepancy was not a minor clerical error but an infirmity that struck at the very root of the prosecution case as the inventory report and arrest memo are foundational documents in an NDPS case.

The defence further submitted that the accused had sought production of CCTV footage, which according to them would support their plea regarding their presence elsewhere. It was also argued that although the alleged recovery had taken place at a public location, no independent witness had been associated with the proceedings. Alleged discrepancies relating to the timing of the proceedings and preparation of documents were also pointed out. It was emphasized that the accused did not have any previous criminal history.

Opposing the bail applications, the State argued that the alleged recovery involved a commercial quantity, since 2 kilograms of charas had allegedly been recovered from each accused. Consequently, State contended that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted. It maintained that the accused had been apprehended at the spot, the recovery proceedings had been conducted in accordance with law and the FSL report supported the prosecution case.

The State further submitted that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not attracted in the facts of the case because the recovery had allegedly been effected from bags carried by the accused and not from their personal search. The allegation regarding deletion of CCTV footage was also denied.

Justice Ashish Naithani observed that “this Court is conscious that the alleged recovery is stated to be of commercial quantity and, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is required to be borne in mind. However, the principal circumstance which weighs with this Court at this stage is the procedural infirmity pointed out in the present matter”.

Examining the record, the Court observed that “the inventory report and the 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. As per the sequence projected by the State, these documents were prepared at the spot prior to registration of the FIR. However, the said documents are shown to contain the FIR/crime number”.

“Prima facie, therefore, there appears to be an inconsistency in the chronology of events, inasmuch as the FIR number could not ordinarily have been available at the stage when such documents are stated to have been prepared. At this stage, 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 same prima facie bears upon the manner, timing and credibility of preparation of the recovery/arrest documents, and raises a material doubt regarding the sequence of proceedings as projected by the State”

Significantly, the Court held that even independently of the other grounds urged by the defence, the procedural infirmity identified in the case was “material enough” at the bail stage to “prima facie cast doubt upon the sanctity of the recovery proceedings”. The Court therefore concluded that the accused had succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed both bail applications and directed that the accused be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Case: Bhawan Singh v State of Uttarakhand (BA1 No. 656 of 2026) with Prem Singh v State of Uttarakhand( BA1 No. 723 of 2026)