Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1838 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 March, 2026

             Office Notes,
            reports, orders
            or proceedings
SL.   Dat
             or directions                               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.    e
            and Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures

                              CRLA No. 100 of 2026
                              With
                              Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2026)
                              Mohd. Parvez
                                                                   --Appellant
                                                     Versus
                              State of Uttarakhand
                                                                 --Respondent
                              Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Appellant.

2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026).

4. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2026, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Nainital, in Special Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2019, State vs. Mohd. Parvez, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2026; that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery; that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with; and that the alleged recovery is of non-commercial quantity.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, sufficient grounds exist for granting bail to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. The Appellant - Mohd. Parvez - shall be released on bail during the pendency of the present criminal appeal upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court concerned.

9. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a ground for seeking unnecessary adjournments or for delaying the disposal of the present criminal appeal.

10. List this case on 20.05.2026.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 12.03.2026 Shiksha