Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1163 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026

             Office Notes,
            reports, orders
            or proceedings
SL.   Dat
             or directions                              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.    e
            and Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures

                              Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2025)
                              In
                              CRLA No. 635 of 2025
                              Ikrar
                                                                --Appellant
                                                   Versus
                              State of Uttarakhand
                                                              --Respondent

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J., Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The matter is fixed for hearing on the Bail Application filed by the Appellant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2025).

5. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.09.2025 and order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Vikasnagar, Dehradun, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, "NDPS Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years along with a fine of ₹1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo an additional one year's simple imprisonment.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was on bail during the course of trial and never misused the liberty so granted. It is further submitted that the Appellant is in custody since 22.09.2025 and that there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery of contraband. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellant is suffering from medical issues, as he has a tumour in his head.

7. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that in the recovery memo, the weight of the alleged contraband has been mentioned only as approximately 1 kg and not with exact measurement, though the quantity recovered from the Appellant/accused ought to have been specifically weighed. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and particularly considering that the Appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist for granting bail.

9. Accordingly, the Appellant shall be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

10. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a ground for seeking unnecessary adjournments or for delaying the disposal of the present Criminal Appeal.

11. The Registry is directed to prepare the paper book and supply the same to the concerned parties, as per Rules.

12. List this case on 07.05.2026.

(Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.) 17-02-2026

Shiksha