Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Seeta vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2025
Smt. Seeta ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Seetal Selwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
With
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2025
Manish Sajwan ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
And
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.716 of 2025
Kripal Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Seetal Selwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) 2 All these appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order dated 07.11.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kripal Singh, Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Manish Sajwan and Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Smt. Seeta, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Nainital. By it, the appellants have been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced accordingly. They seek bail during the pendency of the appeals.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2025 are already admitted.
3. Admit the Criminal Appeal No. 716 of 2025
4. Heard on bail applications and perused the record.
5. According to the prosecution case, on 06.08.2018, ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the entire prosecution case is false; according to the prosecution, the arrest memo and information memo were prepared at the spot, in the arrest memo and information memo of the appellants Kripal Singh and Smt. Seeta, the FIR number has been written which was lodged much after the alleged recovery.
3
7. This fact is not denied by learned State counsel.
8. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel that, as to how the FIR number was recorded in the arrest memo and information memo, when the FIR was admittedly lodged much thereafter? He has no answer to it.
9. Having considered this and other attending factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellants be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
12. The appellants be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeals, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. List in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.03.2026 Jitendra