Shahjad vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1282 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shahjad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Second Bail Application No.31 of 2026

Shahjad                                          ........Applicant

                             Versus

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

Present:-
      Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant.
      Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR

No.637 of 2024, dated 06.10.2024, under Sections

8/21/29/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Kotwali

Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on

bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant.

His first bail application has already been dismissed in

non-prosecution on 17.12.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 06.10.2024, from the

possession of the applicant Smack in commercial quantity

was allegedly recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that in this case the applicant was arrested on

06.10.2024; charge-sheet was filed on 03.01.2025;

cognizance was taken 18.01.2025; charges were framed

on 28.05.2025. Thereafter, till date no witness has been

examined and the trial has yet not been concluded.

5. Learned State counsel admits these factual

aspects.

6. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity

of Smack and in such cases Section 37 of the Act

makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not

be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not

guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit

any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not

give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a

person in custody without conducting a trial.

7. The applicant is in custody for more than one

year. In between for more than 06 months, no witness

has been examined and the trial has yet not been

concluded. It commands this Court to enlarge the

applicant on bail.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to

be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant be released on bail, 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.) 19.02.2026 Sanjay

SANJAY

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df 4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,

KANOJIA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A 84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.02.20 15:49:47 +05'30'