Nisar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5651 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Nisar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 November, 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. 441 of 2025

Nisar                                                      ...... Appellant

                                        Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                   ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 07.07.2025, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No. 09 of 2020, State v. Nisar, by the court of Special

Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/District and Sessions Judge, District

Champawat. By it, the appellant has been convicted under

Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 ("the Act"), and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of

the Act.

2. Heard.

3. This 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 15.11.2019,

charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it

is a false case; where the allegedly recovered charas was kept, it is

not proved; the malkhana register has not been produced to show

as to at what time, the allegedly recovered charas was kept in

malkhana, and when it was taken out. In addition to it, he

submits that PW4, Prakash Singh, has stated that he had taken

the articles on court on 16.11.2019, but he deposited it in FSL on

18.11.2019, while there is no evidence to show as to when the

article was kept on 17.11.2019.

8. Learned State Counsel submits that the

prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Though, she admits that the malkhana register, as such,

has not been produced to prove their entries.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

12. 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.) 20.11.2025

Ravi Bisht