HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.624 of 2025 Subeg Singh alias Chhubait Singh …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. R.S. Sammal and Ms. Sarita Bisht, Advocates for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.200 of 2024, dated 11.06.2024, under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 11.06.2024, Smack was recovered from the co-accused. It is he, who told that he brought the Smack from the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent; he has not committed any offence; except the statement of the co- 2 accused, there is no evidence against him. He would submit that once earlier, the applicant was arrested with two bottles of liquor, which he was taken to a marriage party, but he was apprehended; he pleaded guilty and fined. He would submit that in the instant matter, there is no material against him; the applicant has not criminal antecedent, as such. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the co-accused has named the applicant. In addition to it, there is call detail record, which reveals that the applicant and the co-accused were talking to each others. She admits that there is no transcript, as such. She also admits that except excise case, the applicant has not been convicted in any other case. 6. Criminal antecedents has great importance in the matters of granting bail, but the material in the instant matter is also required to be seen, as to what is the basis for implicating a person under an offence. In the instance case, what is stated is that, it is the co-accused, who named the applicant and they were talking to each other. 3 7. Having considered the available evidence, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504 686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8E C450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.06.18 18:01:13 +05'30'