Uttarakhand High Court
BA3/69/2025 of AMIT SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 9 January 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No.69 of 2025 Amit Sharma ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. 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
Third Bail Application No.69 of 2025
Amit Sharma
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 150 of 2023,, under Section 8/20/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
(“the Act”), Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected on merits on 19.03.2024. His second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025.
4. According to the FIR, on 27.10.2023, charas in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant.
5. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter was filed on 14.10.2023; cognizance was taken on 18.10.2023; charge was framed on 23.02.2024; PW2 was examined on 31.05.2025, thereafter, not even a single witness has been examined.
6. It is a case of recovery of charas in commercial quantity 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 a year. For more than six months in between not even a single witness was examined.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, 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) 09.01.2026 Jitendra