MOHD ANZAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/2160/2025

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/22/29/60. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010177412025

Filing Number

BA1/9206/2025

Filing Date

07-Nov-2025

Registration No

BA1/2160/2025

Registration Date

07-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

29-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/22/29/60

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD ANZAR

    Adv. VISHWA PRAKASH BAHUGUNA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: BA1/2160/2025 - Mohd Anzar v. State of Uttarakhand The Uttarakhand High Court granted regular bail to Mohd Anzar, arrested for alleged possession of pharmaceutical drugs (Tramadol, Acetaminophen, Dicyclomine, and Alprazolam) under NDPS Act sections 8/22/29/60. The court found prima facie procedural irregularities undermining the prosecution's credibility: the FIR/Case Crime number appeared on documents (inventory report and arrest memo) allegedly prepared before FIR registration, and seized samples took 13 days to reach FSL Chandigarh despite being only 3 hours away, with no satisfactory explanation for the transit delay. Applying the Supreme Court's principle in *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, the court held substantial procedural lapses and unexplained delays concerning sample custody warranted bail, citing the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged custody since September 2025. Bail was granted subject to regular court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and travel restrictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-May-2026

    Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma

  6. 29-Dec-2025

    Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF

  8. 08-Dec-2025

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma

  9. 13-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF

  10. 11-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 07-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA1/2160/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: BA1/2160/2025 - Mohd Anzar v. State of Uttarakhand The Uttarakhand High Court granted regular bail to Mohd Anzar, arrested for alleged possession of pharmaceutical drugs (Tramadol, Acetaminophen, Dicyclomine, and Alprazolam) under NDPS Act sections 8/22/29/60. The court found prima facie procedural irregularities undermining the prosecution's credibility: the FIR/Case Crime number appeared on documents (inventory report and arrest memo) allegedly prepared before FIR registration, and seized samples took 13 days to reach FSL Chandigarh despite being only 3 hours away, with no satisfactory explanation for the transit delay. Applying the Supreme Court's principle in *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, the court held substantial procedural lapses and unexplained delays concerning sample custody warranted bail, citing the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged custody since September 2025. Bail was granted subject to regular court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and travel restrictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case