2026:UHC:1088 SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 220 of 2026 Dinesh Chandra Pathak --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J., Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant- Dinesh Chandra Pathak, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Khayali Datt Pathak, R/o Village Ladhi Post Office, Kapakat, District Bageshwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 22 of 2026, registered at Police Station Banbhulapura, Haldwani, District Nainital, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. Heard Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 5. As per the FIR, the Applicant—Dinesh Chandra Pathak and co-accused Bhupesh Chandra Pathak were apprehended while riding a motorcycle. Bhupesh Chandra Pathak was driving the motorcycle, whereas the present Applicant was riding pillion. It is alleged that there was a joint recovery of contraband substance, namely charas. As per the recovery memo, 463 grams of charas was recovered. 6. Since the recovery has been shown to be joint, it is not clear as to whom the contraband allegedly belonged. 2026:UHC:1088 7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and has been in jail since 01.02.2026. It is further submitted that the FIR mentions joint recovery of 435 grams of charas from the possession of the accused persons. Learned counsel contends that the alleged recovery was effected in the absence of any independent witness, despite the fact that it is stated to have been made in broad daylight at a public place. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery was made on the basis of information received from an informant and that the Applicant has been falsely roped in the present case. 8. Learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 11. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 12. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 18-02-2026 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.02.18 17:31:22 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1088