Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/35/2026 of JAKIRUDDIN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 February 2026
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL 1st Bail Application No. 35 of 2026 Jakiruddin ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party Present:- Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
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
1st Bail Application No. 35 of 2026
Jakiruddin
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
.….Opposite Party
Present:- Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Jakiruddin is in judicial custody in FIR No. 169 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case, smack in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the co-accused on 18.05.2024. It is she, who revealed that she had brought the smack from the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nothing was recovered from the applicant; merely based on the statement of the co-accused and some call details, the applicant has been implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, in fact, the son of the co-accused had taken some money, as a loan from the applicant, which he had returned, that too 10 days prior to the alleged recovery of smack.
2
5. Learned State Counsel admits that based on the statement given by the co-accused as well some money transaction between the applicant and the co-accused, the applicant has been implicated.
6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant 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.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.02.2026 Avneet/