2026:UHC:2962 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.1216 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.57 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Applicant was apprehended by the police party, and from his possession, 2.121 kgs. of Charas was allegedly recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 28.01.2025, charge sheet was submitted on 22.07.2025, cognizance was taken on 29.07.2025 and charges were framed on 11.08.2025, but thereafter, not a single prosecution witness have been examined. He submits that applicant is about 60 years of age and is having no criminal history. 5. To support his case, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kishori Paswan Vs. State of Punjab. For ready reference, paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) has discussed this serious issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the Right to Life of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para 49 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court not to give unnecessary adjournments 2026:UHC:2962 resulting in the witnesses being won over. However, the non-compliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm. We are touching upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the accused person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due to no fault of his own". 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain's case (supra) has dealt with this issue with regard to delay in trial and long custody of the accused person vis-a-vis the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para Nos.19 and 20 are reproduced as under:- 19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material 2026:UHC:2962 in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra) has observed as under:- "3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed." 6. Although a commercial quantity of contraband is alleged, the applicant is about 60 years of age, has no criminal antecedents, and is in prolonged custody since 29.01.2025. The charge sheet has already been filed and charges framed, yet not a single prosecution witness has been examined, indicating undue delay in trial and prolonged incarceration. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant-Hori Lal be released on 2026:UHC:2962 bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the complainant/ informant will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Alok Mahra, J.) 22.04.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365 445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454 C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.23 14:16:07 +05'30'