Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2371 (UTT)

SURAJ PRAKASH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/30/2025 · 2025-05-19

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:4147 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 No. 30 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Goswami and Mr. Deepak Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. This is the second bail application and the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on 04.02.2025. 4. Present applicant–Suraj Prakash S/o Shri Mohan Singh, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 06.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 0004 of 2025, Police Station Chorgaliya, District Nainital, wherein the present applicant along with two other persons, namely, Virender Singh Bisht and Mr. Mohammad Sariq Ansari have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and, furthermore, there is no proper compliance of Section 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. 6. He further submits that the alleged contraband charas, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, though is a commercial quantity i.e. 1.262 kg of charas, but the recovery, as shown, is nothing but planted one. 7. On the other side, learned State 2025:UHC:4147 counsel, seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that the applicant is a habitual offender, since prior to this case he was implicated in two criminal cases of similar nature, in one case, he has already been convicted and in another one the trial is going on. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the past history of the present applicant relating to the similar nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant second bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.05.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:4147