Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7668 (UTT)

SIKKI KHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1012/2025 · 2025-06-13

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. 1012 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. S. R. S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht and Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned Assistant Government Advocates for the State. 3. 4. Present applicant ‘Sikki Khan, son of Shri Dillat Khan,’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 17.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 16 of 2025, Police Station – Kotwali Almora, District – Almora, wherein present applicant along with one other accused Shubham Singh Bisht, have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/ 18 of the NDPS Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband Opium, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is 1 kg 14 gram of Opium, which is much below the commercial quantity. He further submits that there is no substantial compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and there is no independent witness of the recovery of contraband - Opium and applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. Apart from this, he further submits that even the recovery of contraband – smack, which is shown to be recovered from the other co-accused Shubham Singh Bisht, is 106 gram, which is also a non commercial quantity. 7. On the other side, learned State Counsel have not disputed this fact that contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is non commercial quantity. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that contraband which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is non commercial quantity and the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘‘Sikki Khan” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and if the applicant is found to be indulged in similar nature of crime, in future, the prosecution is free to move application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.06.2025. SKS