Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2332 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               IA No.01 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                      In
               Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2024
Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana                              ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                     ..... Respondent


Present:
Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, 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 06.12.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.23 of 2021, State Vs. Sunder Singh Mehra @ Mehrana, by

the court of Special Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the

appellants has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), and

sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.

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.01 of 2024.

7. According to the FIR, on 14.10.2020, charas was

recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the

entire prosecution case is false; the sample seal were prepared at

the spot, but it bear the FIR number, which was lodged much

after the alleged recovery.

9. These facts are admitted by learned State Counsel.

10. The Court wanted to know from learned State

Counsel as to how the FIR number was recorded in the sample

seal and inventory report, when the FIR was admittedly lodged

much thereafter? He has no answer to it.

11. Having considered, this Court is 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.) 24.02.2026

Ravi Bisht