Suraj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2074 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Suraj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 March, 2026

                                                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                                                                                      2026:UHC:1882

                               BA1 No. 234 of 2026

                               Suraj Kumar                    --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand          --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant.

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

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant, Suraj Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Sushil Kumar, R/o Harijan Basti Mohalla, P.S. Badhapur, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 289 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, for the offences under Sections 8/22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act, 1985).

4. Heard Mr. Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with; and that the main accused, who was arrested on the spot and on whose pointing out the contraband was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail, and thus the present case stands on parity. It is further submitted that the present Applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the confessional statement of the main accused. He has no criminal history and is a pharmacist.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application, contending that, considering the direct involvement of the present Applicant, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the present Applicant by a well-reasoned and detailed order. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act applicable in the present case were duly complied with by the police party, and a huge quantity of 6000 tramadol capsules was recovered; therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

7. Considering the quantity of contraband, the role attributed to the Applicant, the recovery made from his possession, and the fact that the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Applicant at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected.

9. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.

10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 18.03.2026 Shiksha