JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant Sakib Azam is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0471 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station- Ramnagar, District- Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 02.11.2022, police suspected two persons, who were exchanging some articles. When they spotted police, they wanted to run away, but the applicant, who had a bag with him, was apprehended. He revealed that he had narcotic substance injections with him. The recovery memo records that narcotic substances, in commercial quantity, was recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case; the applicant’s brother runs a chemist shop in the name and style of Shifa Medical Store. On the date of occurrence, the applicant was in his brother’s shop. The police took him forcibly from his shop and the entire episode is captured in CCTV footages, which is Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 25.05.2023. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the recovery was done just in front of the medical store of the brother of the applicant, but she would submit that, as per prosecution, the applicant was exchanging the articles with some other person and he tried to run away from the place of incident. 6. This Court had sought a report from Senior Superintendant of Police, Nainital (“the SSP”), with regard to the CCTV footages, as filed by the applicant. He had recommended that the CCTV footages, as filed by the applicant, require forensic examination. 7. Learned State Counsel has raised one objection. She would submit that when PW1, a witness of recovery, was examined at trial, he was not cross examined. Instead, adjournment was sought on behalf of the defence. She would submit that had there been any CCTV footage, the PW1 could have been confronted with it, which was not done, and the applicant is trying to create evidence in the bail application, which should not be permitted. 8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. She would submit that had there been any CCTV footage, the PW1 could have been confronted with it, which was not done, and the applicant is trying to create evidence in the bail application, which should not be permitted. 8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 9. Definitely, the defence had opportunity to cross examine PW1, the recovery witness, and confront him the CCTV footages, which was not done. Instead of confronting a witness in the court and placing CCTV footages in this Court, at the stage of bail, this situation commands this Court not to entertain such CCTV footages. 10. The site plan is on record. The applicant was allegedly arrested just in front of the shop of his brother, Shifa Medical Store. Why should the applicant exchange the articles outside the store, if he has a store adjoining the alleged place of incident? Why should he publically exchange these narcotic substances? Why did he run away from the place to some other place? Why he could not have gone inside his brother’s shop? These and many more questions would find scrutiny during trial. Admittedly, the brother of the applicant has a drug license for keeping those narcotic substances, and admittedly, just in front of the shop, the applicant was arrested. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.