CRLA/385/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 1660 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/385/2025 on 2 August, 2025

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               I.A. No.1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                               In
                               CRLA No.385 of 2025
                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment & order dated 09.05.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli, Gopeshwar in Special Sessions Trial No.4 of 2020, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and was awarded punishment of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. The appellant has sought his release on bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail application moved on behalf of appellant/applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; that there is no public witness to the alleged recovery memo; that no inventory was prepared of the alleged contraband at the time of seizure, which is a mandatory condition stipulated under Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act; that since the Appeal is not liable to be taken up for hearing in near future, therefore, the bail application may be considered.

5. Learned State Counsel admitted the fact that no inventory was prepared of the alleged contraband at the time of seizure, as mandated under Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. He would further submit that on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court and the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid charges, based on reliable and believable evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, the sequence of incident, prima facie, this Court is of the view that since there is non- compliance of the provision contained in Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, he is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let the appellant-Pushkar Singh be released on bail during the pendency of Appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

a) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;

b) The appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court;

c) The appellant shall deposit his Passport with the Investigating Officer.

The Passport may only be returned by the order of this Court. In case, appellant does not have Passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

It is clarified that if the appellant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

8. List this Appeal for final hearing in due course.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 02.08.2025 Arpan