Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2012 (UTT)

JAIPAL SINGH BHANDARI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/177/2024 · 2025-02-10

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 177 of 2024 Jaipal Singh Bhandari and Another ….....Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicants Jaipal Singh Bhandari and Balam Singh Bhandari are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.0001 of 2024, under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”) Police Station Thailisain, District Pauri Garhwal. They have sought their release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 10.01.2024, 30.790 Kgs Ganja was recovered from the possession of applicant-Jaipal Singh Bhandari and 25.185 Kgs Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant Balam Singh Bhandari. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the charges were framed in the matter on 06.07.2024, and, thereafter, only one witness was 2 examined on 05.09.2024, but still, his examination-in- chief is to be completed; the applicants are old aged persons; applicants were arrested from their respective homes a day prior to the date of incident; it is a case of false implication. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the trial is not delayed; commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicants; there is no material on record to substantiate that the applicants were apprehended much before they have been shown to be arrested with Ganja. 6. The charges in the case were framed on 06.07.2024. Thereafter, PW1 was examined on 05.09.2024. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Ganja. The FIR records as to how the applicants were arrested and commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered from both of them. 7. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.02.2025 Ravi Bisht