Shiv Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1946 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shiv Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2024
                                  With
     IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence

Shiv Kumar                                          ...... Appellant

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                              ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the appellant, through video
conferencing.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 23.03.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.75 of 2016, State Vs. Shiv Kumar, by the court of Special

Judge (NDPS, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the

appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8/22

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

("the Act") and Sections 147, 148, 225, 186, 332 read with Section

149 and Section 353 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. List in due course for final hearing along with

connected appeals.

5. Heard on Bail and Suspension of Sentence

Application (IA) No.1 of 2024.

6. According to the FIR, on 16.11.2015, when the

appellant was apprehended and questioned, he gave police a

packed in which there was smack. Thereafter, the article

recovered was sealed. While police was still in the process of

sealing and making recovery memo, etc, the family members and

others of the appellant joined and they attacked the police party,

due to which the police personnel also sustained injuries.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is in custody for more than 21 months; he has been

sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment; it is a case of non-compliance

of Section 50 of the Act because PW2, in his cross examination

has stated that the smack was recovered from the pocket of the

appellant; no consent was taken from the appellant.

8. Learned State Counsel submits that it is not a

case of personal search; it is the appellant, who himself had given

smack to the police, when he was questioned; it is not only a case

of recovery of smack, but when police party was in the process of

preparing documents, they were attacked by the family members

of the appellant.

9. Having considered, this Court does not see any

ground, which may entitle the appellant to bail. Accordingly, the

bail and suspension of sentence application deserves to be

rejected.

10. The bail and suspension of sentence application is

rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.08.2025

Ravi Bisht