Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana vs State Of Uttarakhand

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2332 UK
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               IA No.01 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                      In
               Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2024
Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana                              ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                     ..... Respondent


Present:
Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 06.12.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.23 of 2021, State Vs. Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana, by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the appellants has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. The LCR has already been received.

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2024.

7. According to the FIR, on 14.10.2020, charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the entire prosecution case is false; the sample seal were prepared at the spot, but it bear the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery.

2

9. These facts are admitted by learned State Counsel.

10. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to how the FIR number was recorded in the sample seal and inventory report, when the FIR was admittedly lodged much thereafter? He has no answer to it.

11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

14. Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2026 Ravi Bisht