Surjeet Singh @ Ladi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 432 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Surjeet Singh @ Ladi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  IA No. 2 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                  In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2024
Surjeet Singh @ Ladi                                       ........Appellant
                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      ........Respondent
Present:-

       Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
       Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The appellant proposes to challenge the judgment and

order dated 08.12.2023, recorded in Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of

2017, State v. Surjeet Singh @ Ladi, by the court of Special Judge,

NDPS Act/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the

appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic

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

sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a

period of six months. The appellant seeks bail during pendency of

the appeal.

2. The appeal is already admitted.

3. Heard on bail application and perused the record.

4. According to the FIR, on 31.01.2017, 1.100 kg. Charas

was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that

during trial, the applicant was on bail; the chain of custody of

Charas has not been established; according to PW 8, SI Bhupal

Singh, the specimen sample was taken on 01.02.2017, whereas the

FSL report reveals that it was received on 28.03.2017 and moreover,

it is argued that in the Malkhana register there is no entry of

01.02.2017 that samples were so drawn from the seized articles.

6. These factual narrations are not disputed by the learned

State Counsel.

7. Having considered, 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.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. The execution of sentence appealed against is

suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

10. Let 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) 15.05.2025 Avneet/