[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 December, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ravindra Maithani, Alok Kumar Verma
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Fourth Bail Application No. 4630 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2020
Rakesh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi and Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal,
Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the State.
With
Third Bail Application No. 4631 of 2024
Third Bail Application No. 4635 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2020
Yashpal Yadav and another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and
order dated 16/17.12.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 32 of
2019, State Vs. Rakesh and others, by the court of Special Judge
(NDPS), Almora. By it, the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced under Section 8 read with 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.. The appellants seek bail in these
appeals.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. This is fourth bail application of the appellants Rakesh
and third bail applications of the appellant Yashpal Yadav and
appellant Lekhraj. The first bail applications of the appellants were
dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2021. Their second bail applications
were rejected on merits on 24.03.2022. Third bail application of the
appellant Rakesh was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.07.2024.
4. According to the prosecution, on 15.03.2019, Ganja in
commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the
appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire
case is false. The appellant do not commit any offence. They are in
custody for more than five years now. He submits that according to
the prosecution case, at the time of alleged arrest, arrest memo was
prepared, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after
the alleged recovery.
6. The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel
as to how, the arrest memo which was prepared at the spot could bear
the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery?
7. Learned State counsel admits that there is no document to
ascertain as to how arrest memo bears the FIR number, which was
lodged much after the alleged recovery.
8. 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 appellants be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail applications are allowed.
10. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeals.
11. The appellants be released on bail, during the pendency of
these 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.
12. List in due course.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
12.12.2025
Jitendra
