Uttarakhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
In
Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2022
Dharmendra Kumar ............ Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
In
Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 2022
Sarvendra alias Sarvesh ............ Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these bail applications arise from common
judgment, they are being heard together and decided by this
common order.
2. Instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants
Dharmendra Kumar and Sarvendra alias Sarvesh against
judgment and order dated 06.12.2022, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.74 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sarvendra alias
Sarvesh and another, by the court of Second Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Nainital as well as
judgment and order dated 06.12.2022, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.73 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sarvendra alias
Sarvesh and another, by the court of Second Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Nainital. By
which, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 8/21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
3. Heard on bail applications.
4. According to the prosecution case, on 04.08.2017, late
in the evening, narcotic substances in commercial quantity were
recovered from the possession of the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is a
false and planted case. He would submit that the FIR in the
instant case was lodged on 05.08.2017, but in the Malkhana
Register, the articles were allegedly entered prior to the entry of
01.08.2017. He submits that, in fact, the Serial Nos.47 and 48,
which have been related to the instant offence, is interpolated as
entry at Serial No.47 has been made on 01.08.2017.
6. When these arguments were, in fact, made on the last
occasion, the Court has requested learned State Counsel to
produce the original Malkhana Register for perusal of the Court. It
has been produced.
7. Learned State Counsel admits this fact that the entry in
the Malkhana Register of this incident has been made at Serial
Nos.47 and 48, but thereafter, entry of an offence of 01.08.2017
has been made and it also bears Serial No.47. How is it possible?
This will find deliberation during final adjudication of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also raised a very
serious issue. He would submit that for placing the Malkhana
Register before this Court today it has further been manipulated
and it has been paginated. In fact, according to him, on
08.10.2018, when PW6 was examined, he admitted that there is
no pagination in the Malkhana Register. Is it really a
manipulation? Or the pagination has been done in a routine
manner? The Court would like to give instructions on that aspect
also.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of
the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence
should be suspended and the appellants be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The sentence appealed against is suspended during
the pendency of the appeal.
12. The appellants be released on bail during the
pendency of the appeals 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.
13. The Malkhana Register, which has been placed for
perusal of the Court, be returned to learned State Counsel.
14. The Court directs the SSP, Nainital to examine, as to
how pagination was done in the Malkhana Register that has been
placed before this Court today. Has it been in routine manner? Or
is it an exercise to really manipulate the things because the fact
remains that on 08.10.2018, PW6 Constable Manish Nautiyal has
stated that the Malkhana Register does not bear any pagination.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.09.2025 17.09.2025
Sanjay
