Saleem @ Aleem @ Tillu vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5139 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Saleem @ Aleem @ Tillu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 October, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                   IA No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                   In
                    Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2025

 Saleem @ Aleem @ Tillu                             ........Appellant

                                       Versus

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

 Present:-
        Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the appellant.
        Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.


 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment

and order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of

2020, State of Uttarakhand v. Saleem @ Aleem @ Tillu, by the court of

Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/District & Sessions Judge,

Champawat, by which the appellant has been convicted under

Sections Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act") and sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 04 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Act, with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. According to the prosecution case, on 11.08.2019, 430

gms. Charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire

recovery is false; there are grave contradictions in the statements of

the witnesses; in fact, according to the prosecution, specimen seal was

prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged

much after the alleged recovery. It is also argued that it is a case of

non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act.

6. Learned State Counsel admits that specimen seal bears

the FIR number, which was lodged much after the recovery.

7. The Court wanted to know from the learned State

Counsel as to how the specimen seal could bear the FIR number,

which was lodged much after the alleged recovery? He submits that

there is no document to clarify it.

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 appellant 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 appellant Saleem @ Aleem @ Tillu 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.

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

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 30.10.2025 Avneet/