Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/250/2025 of RAJESH KALA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 January 2026
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 250 of 2025 Rajesh Kala ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani,
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. 250 of 2025
Rajesh Kala
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Special Sessions Trial No.09 of 2024, State Vs. Bhagat Singh and Others, arising out of FIR No.02 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/27/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Rikhanikhal, District Pauri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused.
3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.789 of 2024, was rejected on 13.06.2024.
4. According to the prosecution case, on 12.01.2024, ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant, while he was driving a vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is entirely false; according to the prosecution case, the inventory report was prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery.
6. Learned State Counsel admits this fact, but she submits that, as per the instructions, in the inventory report, the FIR number was recorded post lodging of the FIR.
7. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel that if the inventory report and other documents, which were prepared at the time of recovery, were lodged in the police station through general diary entry, how could somebody take it out and lodge the FIR number in it? Where are the supporting documents? She submits that there is no document, as such.
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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
06.01.2026 Ravi Bisht