Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6351 (UTT)

GOPAL JAISWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/802/2025 · 2025-07-15

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6132 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/802/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Gopal Jaiswal, son of late Shri Jugal Kishore,’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 20.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 0019 of 2024, Police Station – Munnikireti, District – Tehri Garhwal, 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 present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated and the contraband smack, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is non commercial quantity i.e. 12.02 gram. 5. He further submits that there is no proper substantial compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein detail of previous criminal history of the applicant has been given. As per the counter affidavit, applicant has long previous criminal history of 7 cases and first case is of 2010 and out of these cases, 5 criminal cases related to NDPS Act. Apart from this, from the present applicant alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is “smack”, which effects the young generation particularly the students nowadays. Smack effects every part of a person’s life and smack addition often leads to a loss of interest in daily routine was breakdown in relationship and financial and legal problems. Therefore, taking into consideration that the applicant is indulged in such activities since 2010, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:6132