SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3859 BA2 No. 57 of 2026 Aashma ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Second Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Aashma, W/o Khurshid Hasan, R/o Alikhan Mohalla Hajratnagar, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 165 of 2024, registered at Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing the present second bail application, submitted that ever since the first bail application was rejected on 15.07.2025, and despite charges having already been framed on 30.04.2025, not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. It is further submitted that the co- accused, having a similar role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 28.11.2025. Learned counsel further contended that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 20.10.2024. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application contending that the contraband allegedly recovered from the Applicant weighs 350 grams, which is above the commercial quantity prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 20.10.2024 and no prosecution witness has been examined till date despite the charges having been framed more than a year ago. Considering the period of incarceration, the delay in conclusion of trial, and the fact that the co-accused having a similar role has already been granted bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 11. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 19.05.2026 Shiksha