UKHC010144982026 2026:UHC:7337 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1412/2026 Suraj Kashyap --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA for the State. 3. By the instant bail application, the present applicant is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 10.04.2026 bearing FIR No. 23 of 2026, Police Station – Banbasa, District – Champawat wherein the present applicant along with his wife has been implicated for the offence punishable under section 8/21 read with section 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he has no relation whatsoever with the alleged recovery and he was never in possession of any illegal contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant and the present recovery in planted one. She further submits that as per recovery memo, there is no prior information and it is a case of chance recovery and there is no compliance of Section 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act and there is no independent witness. 5. On the other side, learned State Counsel submits that the contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 29.79 gram of smack but the present applicant has criminal history of 11 cases, out of which, there is disclosure of 9 criminal cases in the bail UKHC010144982026 2026:UHC:7337 application, and 4 cases relate to the NDPS Act and the applicant is a habitual offender and there are cases of Excise Act, Gambling Act and Arms Act pending against the present applicant. 6. Apart from this, he submits that present applicant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC wherein he was on parole and during parole, he committed present crime. He finally concluded his arguments by submitting that applicant does not deserve for bail, since he has long criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, it will not be in the interest of society. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long criminal history of the applicant and the present case relates to recovery of “smack”, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.08.2026 SKS