Uttarakhand High Court
Trilok Chandra Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 November, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2025:UHC:9725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
4TH NOVEMBER, 2025
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1525 of 2025
Trilok Chandra Arya .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr.
Abhishek Joshi, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Akshay Latwal, Assistant
Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The applicant - Trilok Chandra Arya is in
judicial custody for the offence punishable under
Section 8 read with Section 20 and Section 60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
in Case Crime No.127 of 2025, registered at Police
Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. In the night of 20.07.2025, the police saw
two individuals standing near a motorcycle. Seeing the
police, they started leaving on the motorcycle. They
were apprehended at about 23:00 o'clock. Harish Singh
Matiyali (co-accused) was sitting on the motorcycle.
Trilok Chandra Arya (applicant) was with him. The co-
accused had a bag hanging on his shoulder. The police
2025:UHC:9725
recovered 1528 grams of charas from the said bag. The
co-accused told the police that he brought the
recovered charas from the village and he had told the
applicant that if he went with him, he would give him
Rs.15,000-20,000/-. Applicant told the police that he
came with the co-accused out of greed for money. They
were arrested.
3. Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Akshay Latwal,
learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State.
4. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, has
contended that the alleged charas was not recovered
from the possession of the applicant. He did not know
that there was charas in the bag of the co-accused and
only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused,
he has been falsely implicated. There is no independent
witness to substantiate the police story. Applicant has
no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of
District Nainital, therefore, there is no chance of his
absconding, and, the applicant is in custody since
21.07.2025.
5. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Assistant Government
Advocate has opposed the bail application.
6. In "Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan",
2025:UHC:9725
AIR 2015 SC 2098, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the term "possession" consists of two
elements. First, it refers to the corpus or the physical
control and the second, it refers to the animus or intent
which has reference to exercise of the said control.
7. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate
has relied on the paragraph no.21 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rakesh Kumar
Raghuvanshi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", 2025
SCC OnLine SC 122.
"21. Conscious possession refers to a
scenario where an individual not only
physically possesses a narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance but is also aware of
its presence and nature. In other words, it
requires both physical control and mental
awareness. This concept has evolved
primarily through judicial interpretation since
the term "conscious possession" is not
explicitly defined in the NDPS Act. This Court
through various of its decisions has
repeatedly underscored that possession
under the NDPS Act should not only be
physical but also conscious. Conscious
possession implies that the person knew that
he had the illicit drug or psychotropic
substance in his control and had the intent or
knowledge of its illegal nature."
8. Mr. Narendra Kumar, the Investigating Officer,
is present through video conferencing. He has informed
that no other evidence is available against the applicant
except his own statement and the statement of the co-
accused.
2025:UHC:9725
9. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal
liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the
accused person in detention during the investigation is
not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to
secure the attendance of the accused.
10. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for both the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep
the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period,
therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the
merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant deserves bail at this stage.
11. The Bail Application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant - Trilok Chandra Arya be
released on bail on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 04.11.2025
Shiv/
