Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/21/2026 of DEEPAK SINGH KARAYAT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 18 May 2026
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application No. 01 of 2026 In Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2026 Deepak Singh Karayat ......Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent Present: Mr. Rajat Mittal, Amicus Curiae. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2026 In Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2026
Deepak Singh Karayat
......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
….Respondent
Present: Mr. Rajat Mittal, Amicus Curiae. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2022, State Vs. Deepak Singh Karaya, by the court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced accordingly. He seeks bail during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is an admitted appeal
4. LCR has already been received.
5. List for final hearing in due course.
6. Heard on Bail Application No.1 of 2026
7. According to the prosecution case, on 26.09.2021, charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant.
2
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution is false; the arrest memo which was allegedly prepared at the spot bears the FIR number.
9. This factual narration is not denied by learned State counsel.
10. The Court wanted to know as to how in the arrest memo, which was prepared at the spot, FIR number is recorded? He has no answer to it.
11. Having considered, 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 execution of 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.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.05.2026
Jitendra