Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8013 (UTT)

RAHUL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1069/2025 · 2025-07-10

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5978 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.1069 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant– Rahul Singh S/o Pappu Singh is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 25.05.2025, bearing FIR No.0032 of 2025, Police Station Bhowali, District Nainital, wherein the present applicant and one Yogendra Saini have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 read with Section 60 of the NDPS, 1985. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is 10.130 kg of Ganja, is a non-commercial quantity. 5. He also submits that there is no substantial compliance of Section 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.05.2025. 7. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State has not disputed this fact that the alleged contraband, which was shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a non-commercial quantity, and, furthermore, the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.05.2025. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties 2025:UHC:5978 and further taking into consideration that the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is a non-commercial quantity and the applicant has no previous criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, Rahul Singh, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail, if the applicant is found to be indulged in any such activity, then the trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for cancelling the bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5978