Faisal Qureshi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2390 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Faisal Qureshi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 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:2154

                               BA1 No. 302 of 2026

                               Faisal Qureshi                  --Applicant

                                                Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand           --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant, Faisal Qureshi, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Shakeel Qureshi, R/o Line No. 18, Chirag Ali Shah, near Baba Dargah, Banbhulpura, District Nainital. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 0205 of 2025, registered at Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital, for offences punishable under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

4. Heard Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 19.08.2025. It is contended that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, despite the place of occurrence, as reflected in the FIR, being a crowded area, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. It is further submitted that the inventory report mentions the FIR number, which could not have been incorporated prior to the lodging of the FIR.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and 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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

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

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 25.03.2026 Shiksha