Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1402/2026 of VIMAL BHATT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 August 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1402/2026 Vimal Bhatt --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel for
UKHC010143822026
2026:UHC:7336
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/1402/2026
Vimal Bhatt
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA for the State.
3. By the instant bail application, the present applicant “Vimal Bhatt, son of Gokulanand Bhatt”, is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 16.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 22 of 2026, Police Station - Muni Ki Reti District Tehri Garhwal, wherein, the present applicant along with one Kishan Nautiyal, have been implicated for the offence punishable under section 8/20 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 has no criminal antecedent. She further submits that in this particular case the alleged contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is commercial quantity of charas i.e. 1kg 200 gms, therefore, section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into the way. In reference to section 37 of the NDPS Act it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the inventory, which was prepared at the time of search and seizure was not properly certified as prescribed under the Rules of 2022 since there is only an endorsement of ‘seen’ while certifying the inventory and, as such, there is no substantial compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Act and, therefore, there is reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. She further submits that co-accused Kishan Nautiyal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 03.08.2026, therefore, applicant is also entitled for UKHC010143822026 2026:UHC:7336 parity.
5. Apart from this, she submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and if he is bailed out there is no possibility that he will be indulge in any such activity in future.
6. On the previous date, learned State Counsel was directed to get instructions whether the present applicant has any previous criminal history. On instructions, he submits that applicant has no previous criminal history.
7. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that since the twin conditions as stipulated under section 37 of NDPS Act are fulfilled, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant “Vimal Bhatt, son of Gokulanand Bhatt” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
i. That the applicant after being released on bail shall join the Trial Court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
ii. The applicant shall not indulge in any such activity in future. In breach of any such condition the prosecution can move an application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.08.2026 SKS