Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4631 (UTT)

SHADAB ALI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/263/2025 · 2025-04-07

Pankaj Purohit

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 WPCRL No.263 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the First Information Report No.345 of 2025 dated 24.03.2025, under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act, registered with Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. 4. This Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 has provided interim protection to the petitioner till today only, having been satisfied by the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his name was cropped up during investigation only on the statement made by the co-accused, Alishan and further there was a CCTV in the shop of the petitioner and he was not present in the shop at the relevant date and time. Before this Court, petitioner undertook to supply the CCTV footage of the relevant date and time to the Investigating Officer within 48 hours. 5. But, today, learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that no CCTV footage was provided by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer, rather instead of providing the CCTV footage, it has been said by the father of the petitioner that the CCTV installed in the shop was not in a working condition, therefore, the 2 CCTV footage cannot be provided. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not incline to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.04.2025 AK