Sameer Ahmad And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5840 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sameer Ahmad And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 November, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                   IA No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                   In
                    Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2025

 Sameer Ahmad and another                                  ........Appellants

                                   Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                     ........Respondent

 Present:-
        Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the appellants.
        Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.


 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and

order dated 23.09.2025/24.09.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial

No. 05 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand v. Azeem and others, by the

court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS

Act, 1985), Nainital. By it, the appellants have been convicted under

Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 ("the Act") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period

of five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, and in default of payment

of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The appellant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. This is an admitted appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail application

and perused the record.

5. According to the prosecution case, on 15.01.2019, 28

gms. smack and 10 gms. smack was recovered from the possession of

the appellants Sameer Ahmad and Rizwan, respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellants were not given the option under Section 50 of the Act so as

to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

7. This fact is not denied by the learned State Counsel.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a

case in which the execution of the sentence should be suspended and

the appellants be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

11. Let the appellants Sameer Ahmad and Rizwan be

released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on their executing

a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like

amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court

concerned.

12. List the criminal appeal for final hearing in due course.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 28.11.2025 Avneet/