Laxman Singh Mahar ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1772 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Laxman Singh Mahar ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024
                              In
              Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2024
Laxman Singh Mahar                      ........Applicant/Appellant
                                  Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                           ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Deepak Petshali, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
          Negi, Brief Holder for the State.


                             With
              Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024
                              In
              Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2024
Kailash Singh Bora                      ........Applicant/Appellant
                                  Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                           ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Deepak Petshali, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
          Negi, Brief Holder for the State.


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

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these appeals arise from a common

judgment and order, they are being heard together.

2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and

order dated 01.10.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.37 of

2020, State of Uttarakhand vs. Kailash Singh Bora and another, by

the court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS), Pithoragarh. By it, the

appellants have been convicted under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced

accordingly. The appellants seek bail during pendency of the

appeal.

3. Heard.

4. These appeals have already been admitted.

5. The lower court record has already been received.

6. List in due course for final hearing.

7. Heard on bail applications.

8. According to the prosecution case, Charas was

allegedly recovered from the possession of the

applicants/appellants on 23.08.2020.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

the entire case is false; according to the police, seizure memo,

arrest memo and inventory report were prepared at the spot, but

they bear the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged

recovery.

10. These facts are not disputed by learned State Counsel.

11. 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.

12. 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 applicants/appellants be enlarged on

bail.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

15. Let the applicants/appellants 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.) 11.03.2026 Sanjay