Vineet Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2211 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vineet Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 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:1999

                               BA1 No. 141 of 2026

                               Vineet Arya                    --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand          --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Vikas Anand and Mr. Amit Satyawali, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant-Vineet Arya, aged about 22 years, S/o Ramesh Arya, R/o Village Anjani, P.S. Siroli, Tehsil Aonla, District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 15 of 2026, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act").

4. Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 11.01.2026. It is further submitted that the contraband allegedly recovered is of non-commercial quantity and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Therefore, the recovery shown against the Applicant is doubtful and appears to be planted.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

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

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 20.03.2026 Shiksha