Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3511 (UTT)

HEERA BALLABH MELKANI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/395/2025 · 2025-03-06

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 395 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma with Ms. Suraiya Naaz, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Heera Ballabh Melkani’, who is in judicial custody in relation to First Information Report dated 13.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 0004 of 2025, P.S. Lamgara, District Almora, for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery and the contraband, which was shown to be recovered from the applicant, is 0.966 gms of charas, which is much below to commercial quantity. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 13.02.2025. 6. Learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal on written instructions also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the applicant, is below a commercial quantity. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the alleged contraband, which was shown to be recovered from the applicant, is below a commercial quantity, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Heera Ballabh Melkani’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.03.2025 PR