[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
SPLA/275/2025 on 22 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPLA No. 275 of 2025
With
IA NO. 1 of 2025 (Delay Condonation Application)
In
G.A. No.89 of 2025
With
WPCRL No. 1258 of 2025
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the
State/appellant.
2. Mr. Naresh Pant along with Mr.
Raunak Pant, learned counsel for
respondent no.1.
3. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Manish Bisht,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
4. The State/appellant proposes to
challenge the judgment and order dated
30.08.2025 passed by learned Special
Sessions Judge, District Bageshwar in
Special Session Trial No.19 of 2022, by
which the respondent no.1-Royer Nicole has
been acquitted of the charge under Section
8/20(b)(ii)(C) respondent no.2-Roshan Lal
has been acquitted of the charge under
Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(N.D.P.S. Act).
5. The appeal is delayed by 4 days. A
delay condonation application supported by
affidavit has been filed stating therein that
after receipt of the judgment, the matter was
processed and in that process, the delay
occurred.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and considering the grounds stated
in the delay condonation application, we are
of the considered opinion that there are
good grounds to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the application for condonation
of delay is allowed. The delay of 4 days in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
7. Leave is granted.
8. Admit.
9. In this matter, paper-book has already
been prepared and on 17.12.2025, this
Court had directed that the appeal shall be
finally decided at the earliest.
10. In the instant case, according to the
prosecution, on 18.02.2022 the police
received information, pursuant to which the
police party allegedly left the Police Station
in the official vehicle bearing registration No.
UK-07 GA-2201. However, the impugned
judgment itself records that on the said date
the said vehicle did not run at all. The
logbook contains no entry showing
movement of the vehicle and, further, there
is no General Diary entry evidencing that
the official vehicle had departed from the
S.O.G. Office, Bageshwar.
11. This Court, taking into consideration
the health condition of the appellant, has
already observed that the present appeal
shall be heard at the earliest.
12. List for final hearing at 02:15 P.M.
13. Learned State Counsel shall also
address the Court as to how, in the
aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution
case cannot be said to have been
demolished, when the very vehicle by which
the police party allegedly proceeded to the
place of occurrence is shown, on record, not
to have moved at all.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani J.)
22.12.2025 22.12.2025
Mamta
