Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2397 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025
                                 In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2025

Smt. Bhagwan Devi                                         ............Appellant
                                     Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                                   ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the appellant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.



                                 With
           Criminal Misc. Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025
                                 In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2025

Lakhwindar Singh                                          ............Appellant
                                     Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                                   ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the appellant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.



Coram :       Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
              Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these appeals arise from a common

judgment and order, they are being heard together.

2. Instant appeals are preferred against the judgment and

order dated 26.08.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.04 of

2020 and Special Sessions Trial No.5 of 2020, State Vs. Mr.

Lakhwindar Singh and State vs. Bhagwan Devi, respectively, by the

court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/Sessions Judge,

Champawat. By it, the appellants have been convicted under

Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 and sentenced accordingly. The appellants seek bail

during pendency of the appeal.

3. Heard on bail applications.

4. According to the FIR, on 10.09.2019, Charas was

allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire

case is false. They submit that according to the prosecution case,

the sample seal was prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR

number, which was lodged much thereafter.

6. This fact is not denied by the learned State Counsel.

7. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel

that, as to how the FIR number was recorded in the sample seal,

when the FIR was admittedly lodged much thereafter? She has no

answer to it.

8. Having considered this and other attending factors, we

are of the view that these are the cases in which the execution of

sentence should be suspended and the appellants be enlarged on

bail.

9. The bail applications are allowed.

10. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in

these appeals shall remain suspended during the pendency of these

appeals.

11. Let the appellants be released on bail, during pendency of

these appeals on their executing a personal bond and furnishing

two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them,

to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

12. List for final hearing in due course.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.03.2026 Sanjay