logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 021 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Uttarakhand
Case No : IA No. 1 of 2025 For Bail Application In Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH
Parties : Sumit Versus State of Uttarakhand
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Amanjot Singh Chadha, Advocate. For the Respondent: J.S. Virk, D.A.G.
Date of Judgment : 11-03-2026
Head Note :-
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/20 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- NDPS Act

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Suspension of sentence
- Appeal

3. Summary:
The appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of charas. The appellant contends that the prosecution’s evidence is false, specifically that the sample seal bears an FIR number recorded after the alleged recovery, which the State does not dispute. The court examined the discrepancy regarding the FIR number and found no supporting document. Considering these facts, the court decided to suspend the execution of the sentence and grant bail. The appellant was ordered to execute a personal bond and provide two reliable sureties. The sentence remains suspended pending the final decision on the appeal.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

Ravindra Maithani, J.

(Oral):

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 10/11.09.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.83 of 2021, State Vs. Sumit, by the court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Nainital. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced accordingly.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. The LCR has already been received.

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.

7. According to the prosecution case, on 25.02.2021, charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution case is false; according to the police, the arrest memo and sample seal were prepared at the spot, but he submits that the sample seal bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery.

9. These facts are not disputed by learned State Counsel.

10. The Court wanted to know as to how, at police station, the FIR number could be recorded, and who recorded it? Is there any document supporting to it? The answer is in negative.

11. Having considered this and other attending factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

14. Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
 
  CDJLawJournal