Uttarakhand High Court
Kamlesh Alias Kamal Goswami vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.01 of 2023 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2023
Kamlesh Alias Kamal Goswami ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 15/17.04.2023, passed in Special
Sessions Trial No.24 of 2017, State Vs. Kamlesh @ Kamal
Goswami, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Nainital. By it, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal has already been admitted.
4. The LCR has already been received.
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Application (IA) No.01 of 2023.
7. According to the FIR, on 03.09.2016, charas was
recovered from the possession of the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the
entire prosecution case is false; there are discrepancies in the
quantity of charas that is recorded in the recovery memo and that
2
has been recorded in the consent letter; the arrest memo and the
check list both, according to the prosecution, were prepared at the
spot, but they bear the FIR number, which was lodged much after
the alleged recovery. Therefore, it is argued that the entire
prosecution case is false.
9. Learned State Counsel admits that the check list
and arrest memo, which were prepared at the spot, bear the FIR
number.
10. The Court wanted to know from learned State
Counsel as to how the FIR number was recorded in the arrest
memo, when the FIR was admittedly lodged much thereafter? He
has no answer to it.
11. Having considered, this Court is 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 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.)
31.03.2026
Ravi Bisht