Lalit Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 68 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Lalit Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 January, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
                                   In
                    Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2025

Lalit Singh                                                 ......Appellant

                                  Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                        ....Respondent

Present:
              Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for the appellant.
              Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 26.04.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2021,

State Vs. Lalit Singh, by the court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS

Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the appellant has convicted

under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act") and sentenced under Section 8/20

(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. He seeks bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is an admitted appeal.

4. List on 13.02.2026 for final hearing.

Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2025

5. According to the prosecution case, on 07.12.2020, charas

was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that entire case

is false; the appellant has been falsely implicated. He submits that

according to the prosecution case, at the time of alleged recovery, the

recovery memo, specimen seal etc. were recovered, but submits that

the specimen seal is on record, which records FIR number, which was

lodged much after the alleged recovery.

7. Learned State counsel admits that the specimen seal was

prepared at the spot which bears the FIR number.

8. The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel

as to how, in the specimen seal, FIR number could be recorded which

was lodged much after the alleged recovery? There is no answer to it.

9. Having considered, 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

12. 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.01.2026 Jitendra