Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 340 (UTT)

SUKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS SUKKHA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2546/2025 · 2026-04-21

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. 2546 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant – Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukkha, seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 209 of 2025, under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act alongwith Section 3/25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that no recovery of the alleged contraband or the firearm was made from the applicant; that FIR was lodged on 29.11.2025 at about 12:52 hours, whereas, in the arrest memo and the inventory report prepared by the SHO, Nanakmatta, date of the FIR is 28.11.2025 at 22:25 hours. On this basis, it is submitted that entire recovery alleged by the prosecution is doubtful; that at the time of arrest, mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with, in letter and spirit. It is fairly submitted that applicant has previous criminal history of 6 NDPS cases pending against him. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that since, FIR was lodged on 29.11.2025 at about 12:52 hours, whereas, in the arrest memo and the inventory report prepared by the SHO, Nanakmatta, date of the FIR is 28.11.2025 at 22:25 hours, therefore, in light of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, entire recovery alleged by the prosecution is doubtful. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. 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, subject the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses, either directly or indirectly and shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the court or to the investigating agency, to preclude risk of absconding. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Alok Mahra J.) 21.04.2026 Ujjwal