Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7471 (UTT)

SHAMSHAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/972/2025 · 2025-10-15

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9195 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.972 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prateek Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarahand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.19 of 2020, under Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has remained in judicial custody since 10.01.2020. It is submitted that although the alleged place of arrest, as per the F.I.R., is a public area, no independent public witness was cited or examined. Furthermore, it is submitted that the mandatory provisions under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have not been duly complied with. Learned counsel further submitted that, out of the ten prosecution witnesses, seven have already been examined, and the trial has reached an advanced stage. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature. It was further submitted that since the trial is presently in progress, the release of the applicant on bail at 2025:UHC:9195 this stage may obstruct the due course of justice and adversely affect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. 5. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions and a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage of the trial. The application is, accordingly, rejected. 6. However, considering the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in order to secure the ends of justice, the learned trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within the shortest possible period. The trial Court shall also ensure that unnecessary adjournments are avoided. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial court for information and necessary compliance. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04 85365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D 9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2 CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.15 17:21:43 +05'30'