Mahmood ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1729 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mahmood ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025
                              In
              Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2025
Mahmood                                    ........Applicant/Appellant
                                    Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                              ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
          Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief
          Holder for the State.


Coram :      Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
             Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and

order dated 14.02.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.61 of

2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Mahmood and another, by the court

of Special Judge (NDPS), Almora. By it, the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced accordingly. The

appellant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.

2. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 14.06.2022,

Ganja was allegedly recovered from the possession of the

applicant/appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the entire case is false; two persons were named in the FIR; one of

them has already been acquitted. According to the prosecution

case, the sample seal and arrest memo were prepared at the spot,

but they bear the FIR number, which was lodged much thereafter.

5. This fact is not denied by the learned State Counsel.

6. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel

that, as to how the FIR number was recorded in the sample seal

and arrest memo, when the FIR was admittedly lodged much

thereafter? He admits that the sample seal and arrest memo were

prepared at the spot and they bear FIR number.

7. Having considered this and other attending factors, we

are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence

should be suspended and the applicant/appellant be enlarged on

bail.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in

this appeal shall remain suspended during the pendency of the

appeal.

10. Let the applicant/appellant be released on bail, during

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.

11. List in due course.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.03.2026 Sanjay