Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/31/2026 of SHAHJAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 February 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.31 of 2026 Shahjad ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The
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
Second Bail Application No.31 of 2026 Shahjad
….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand
….….Respondent Present:- Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.637 of 2024, dated 06.10.2024, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been dismissed in non-prosecution on 17.12.2025.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 06.10.2024, from the possession of the applicant Smack in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in this case the applicant was arrested on 06.10.2024; charge-sheet was filed on 03.01.2025; cognizance was taken 18.01.2025; charges were framed on 28.05.2025. Thereafter, till date no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded.
5. Learned State counsel admits these factual aspects.
6. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Smack and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.
7. The applicant is in custody for more than one year. In between for more than 06 months, no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded. It commands this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. 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 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df 4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A 84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.02.20 15:49:47 +05'30'