Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13000 (UTT)

FAIM AHEMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2196/2024 · 2025-05-14

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:3923 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2196/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Faim Ahmad, who is in Judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 57 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhowali, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was apprehended with the possession of charas weighing 1.322 Kg.; he submits that according to the Inventory Report, which was prepared on 20.10.2024 by the Arresting Officer, in which, Case Crime No. 57 of 2024, under Section 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act was mentioned. Surprisingly enough, the Inventory Report was prepared on 20.10.2024 at 03:12 P.M. and the FIR was lodged at 04:24 hours on 20.10.2024. How the Inventory Report contains Case Crime No. 0057 of 2024, 2025:UHC:3923 which was not in existence before registration of the FIR, is a moot question, which substantiate the arguments of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail. This Court had asked to learned Deputy Advocate General to verify whether there was any entry in the G.D. regarding Inventory Report. On instructions received, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is no entry in the G.D. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 14.05.2025 Kaushal