Mehar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3247 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mehar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 June, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
                                 In
               Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2025
Mehar Singh                                                    ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                      ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
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 07/08.01.2025, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.285 of 2021, State Vs. Mehar Singh, by the

court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge

(NDPS Act), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. By it, the appellant

has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8/20/60 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act").

2. Heard.

3. The appeal has already been admitted.

4. List in due course for final hearing.

5. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.

6. According to the prosecution case, on 23.12.2012,

the appellant was intercepted when he was moving in a

motorcycle and from his possession, 2.110 Kg charas was

recovered.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in

the instant case, recovery is quite doubtful; according to the

prosecution case, PW7, Jagdish Chandra, was called at the place

of incident, but it is argued that he has not signed the recovery

memo, which doubts his presence at the time of recovery.

8. Learned State Counsel submits that, in fact, PW7,

Jagdish Chandra, had authorised PW2, Surya Bhushan Negi, for

search, and he had signed the authorization letter.

9. It is an admitted appeal. It is the case of personal

search also. It is the case of the prosecution that in the presence

of PW7, Jagdish Chandra, a Gazetted Officer, personal search was

made, but, admittedly, he did not sign the recovery memo.

According to him, he had authorised PW2, Surya Bhushan Negi,

for search. This authorisation letter is Ex.A-1. It also records that

PW7, Jagdish Chandra, had got the articles seized in his presence

and had signed it. As stated, the recovery memo is not signed by

PW7, Jagdish Chandra.

10. Having considered this and other attending factors,

this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of

sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on

bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. The sentence appealed against is suspended during

the pendency of the appeal.

13. 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.) 25.06.2025

Ravi Bisht