Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4559 (UTT)

PAPPU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2164/2025 · 2026-05-05

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3398 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2164/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Dharmesh Kumar and Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant–Pappu is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 518 of 2025, registered under Sections 8/20/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 03.09.2025, the police party, while on routine patrolling and checking duty, apprehended the applicant and allegedly recovered 1 kg 115 grams of charas from his possession. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated; that, the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. It is contended that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been violated. It is further argued that the alleged recovery is shown as a chance recovery and appears doubtful. 7. It is also submitted that no 2026:UHC:3398 independent public witness was associated at the time of the alleged recovery, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. Learned counsel has further pointed out material discrepancies in the prosecution case, particularly that the inventory report and arrest memo are shown to have been prepared at the spot at 20:55 hours, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged later at about 00:51 hours. However, both documents bear the F.I.R. number, which prima facie creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the alleged recovery. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is suffering from an ailment, as bleeding is continuously oozing from his mouth; that he has been in judicial custody since 04.09.2025; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; that he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; that the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by the court below vide order dated 22.09.2025; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, submitting that the recovery has been effected in accordance with law and that the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been duly complied with. However, he does not dispute that the applicant is in judicial custody since 04.09.2025 and that his bail application has been rejected by the court below. 2026:UHC:3398 10. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and taking into account the nature of allegations, the quantity involved, the period of incarceration, and the prima facie discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on 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. 15. 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.) 05.05.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.06 18:16:00 +05'30'