Dharamveer Gangwar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6165 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dharamveer Gangwar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 December, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Bail Application No. 02 of 2025
                                In
                 Criminal Appeal No.606 of 2024

Dharamveer Gangwar                                     ......Appellant

                               Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                   ....Respondent


Present:
             Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the appellant.
             Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 06.09.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2018,

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Dharamveer Gangwar, by the court of Special

Sessions Judge, (NDPS Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the

appellant 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)(B) of the Act. The appellant seeks

bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is an admitted appeal.

4. List in due course.

Heard on Bail Application No. 02 of 2025

5 According to the prosecution case, on 20.06.2018, charas

was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire

case is false. The applicant is in custody for the last 17 months. It is

submitted that the arrest memo and specimen seal, which were

allegedly prepared at the spot, bear the FIR number, which was lodged

much after the alleged recovery.

7. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel as

to how, the arrest memo and specimen seal, which were prepared at

the spot bear the FIR number?

8. To it, learned State counsel submits that there is no

document to ascertain it.

9. Having considered, without adverting much on merits, this

Court is of the view it is a case in which the execution of sentence

should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

12. 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.12.2025 Jitendra