Kailash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2402 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kailash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                  In
               Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2024

Kailash Singh                                      ...... Appellant

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                               ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

                 IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                  In
               Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2024

Girish Kumar                                       ...... Appellant

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                               ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. P.S. Bohra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both the appeals arise from the same

Sessions Trial Number, they are heard together.

2. The instant appeals have been preferred against

judgment and order dated 05.12.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.20 of 2022, State Vs. Kailash Singh and Another, by the

court of Special Judge (NDPS), Pithoragarh. By it, the appellants

have been convicted under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic

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

sentenced accordingly.

3. Heard.

4. These appeals have already been admitted.

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on First Bail Applications (IA) No.1 of 2024

7. According to the prosecution case, on 02.02.2022,

both the appellants were intercepted by the police when they

admitted that were carrying charas. They were given an option of

being searched before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and,

thereafter, search was made, and from their personal search,

charas was recovered.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the entire recovery is bad in the eye of law because the option of

search under Section 50 of the Act has jointly been given to both

the appellants, which vitiates this communication.

9. Learned State Counsel admits this fact that both

these appellants were given joint option under Section 50 of the

Act.

10. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand

and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered the consequence of joint communication. In Para 17,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "a joint

communication of the right available under Section 50(1) of

the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the very purport

of Section 50."

9. Having considered this and other attending

factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution

of sentence should be suspended and the appellants be enlarged

on bail.

10. The bail applications are allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeals.

12. Let the appellants be released on bail during the

pendency of the 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.

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

Ravi Bisht