Gaurav Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1431 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Gaurav Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                      In
               Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2024

Gaurav Kumar                                              ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                     ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 28.02.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.42 of 2022, State Vs. Devendra Kumar and Another, by

the court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), District Almora.

By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under

Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. The LCR has already been received.

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024.

7. According to the FIR, on 09.12.2021, Ganja was

allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

entire prosecution case is false; according to the prosecution case,

the arrest memo and the sample seal, etc. were prepared at the

spot, but they bear the FIR number, which is lodged much after

the alleged recovery.

9. These facts are not disputed by learned State

Counsel.

10. The Court wanted to know as to how, at police

station, the FIR number could be recorded, and who recorded it?

Is there any document supporting to it? The answer is in negative.

11. Having considered this and other attending

factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the

execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be

enlarged on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

14. Let the appellant 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.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2026

Ravi Bisht