Sumit vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1792 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sumit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
                                     In
              Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2025

Sumit                                                    ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                    ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, 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 10/11.09.2025, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.83 of 2021, State Vs. Sumit, by the court of I

Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act),

Nainital. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section

8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, and sentenced accordingly.

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 2025.

7. According to the prosecution case, on 25.02.2021,

charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

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

memo and sample seal were prepared at the spot, but he submits

that the sample seal bears the FIR number, which was 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, we are 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.) 11.03.2026

Ravi Bisht