Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1022/2026 of SANJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010099912026 2026:UHC:5080 BA 1st No.1022 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr.
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.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010099912026
2026:UHC:5080
BA 1st No.1022 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present applicant – Sanjay Kumar S/o Ram Bharose, is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 02.05.2026 bearing FIR No.0147 of 2026, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, he has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She further submits the recovery of alleged prohibited drug is planted one and much below the commercial quantity and there is no substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. She further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2026 and has one criminal history.
5. On the other side, learned AGA have not disputed that the alleged prohibited drug, which is shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is much below commercial quantity however the applicant have a criminal antecedent of one case, which relates to Section 380 and 411 of IPC, wherein, the applicant is bailed out and trial is pending.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that the alleged prohibited drug as shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is much below commercial quantity and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2026 and is a married person, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant – Sanjay Kumar, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
19.06.2026 Nitesh/