Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 100 (UTT)

MOHD AAMIR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/304/2025 · 2026-01-23

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 304 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vikas Anand and Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The applicants – Mohd. Aamir and Mohd. Mohid, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 98 of 2024, under Sections 8, 21 and 60 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S.- Chorgaliya, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is no independent witness to corroborate the recovery of the alleged contraband; that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case; that the compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been made in letter and spirit and that as per the recovery memo, inventory was prepared on the spot, but, there is no corresponding entry of the same in the G.D. entry; that the applicants have no previous criminal history and applicants are languishing in jail since 23.12.2024. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicants be released on bail 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. (Alok Mahra J.) Vacation Judge 23.01.2026 Ujjwal