Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2642 (UTT)

SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/285/2025 · 2025-03-04

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1483 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/285/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant is in judicial custody in relation to FIR dated 03.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 0002 of 2025, registered at Police Station – Pulbatta, District – Udham Singh Nagar, wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8 / 21 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She further submits that alleged contraband (Smack), which was shown to be recovered from the applicant, is below commercial quantity and there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025. 5. On the previous date, State Counsel was directed to get instructions in the matter. 6. Today, on the basis of written instructions, learned AGA submits that applicant is also accused in the case of similar nature and is on bail but he has not disputed this fact that the contraband which was shown to be recovered from the applicant is below commercial quantity. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the fact that contraband recovered from the applicant is below commercial quantity, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant “Sunil Kumar” be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 2025:UHC:1483 9. It is made clear that if the applicant after being released is found to be indulged in any such activity, the prosecution is free to move bail cancellation application without any delay. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.03.2025 SKS