Uttarakhand High Court
Anuj Singh Bohra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 May, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.221of 2025
Anuj Singh Bohra ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Piyush Sammal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
With
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.231of 2025
Prakash Singh Bhandari ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Nipush Mola Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Since both these appeals arise out from one and the same
judgment and order, they are taken up together and heard together.
2. By means of Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, the
appellant Anuj Singh Bohra has challenged his conviction and
sentence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act") recorded on 29.03.2025 in Special
Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2020, State Vs. Anuj Singh Bohra, by the
court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/ Sessions Judge,
Champawat, whereas, by means of Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2025,
the appellant Prakash Singh Bhandari has challenged his conviction
and sentence under Section 8/20 of the Act recorded on 29.03.2025
in Special Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2020, State Vs. Prakash Singh
Bhandari, by the court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/
Sessions Judge, Champawat. The appellants have been convicted
under Section 8/20 of the Act and sentence to undergo five years of
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 22 (b)
(ii) (B) of the Act. They have sought their release on bail.
3. These appeals are already admitted.
4. Heard on bail applications and perused the record.
5. According to the prosecution case, on 05.02.2020, when a
vehicle was intercepted, from the possession of the appellant Anuj
Singh Bohra 700 gram charas and from the possession of the
appellant Prakash Singh Bhandari, 500 gram charas was recovered.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is
a case of non compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. It is
submitted that according to the prosecution, both the appellants were
intercepted simultaneously and they were given joint option to be
searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, which, it is argued
is against the spirit of Section 50 of the Act.
7. Learned State counsel would submit that there is a
consent letter signed by the both the appellants and search was made
in the presence of the Gazetted Officer.
8. The option to be searched under Section 50 of the Act is
not a mere formality. It has a purpose behind it. Joint communication
to two persons of their right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer
or Magistrate may not be termed as in consonance with the provisions
of Section 50 of the Act.
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 appellants be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
12. The appellants be released on bail, during the pendency
of the 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.
13. List in due course.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.05.2025
Jitendra
