Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomeMadan Singh Karayat Alias Maan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31...

Madan Singh Karayat Alias Maan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 March, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Uttarakhand High Court

Madan Singh Karayat Alias Maan Singh 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 2024 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence
                          Application
                                      In
               Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2024
Madan Singh Karayat alias Maan Singh                      ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                     ..... Respondent


Present:
Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, 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)

SPONSORED

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 25.06.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.32 of 2021, State Vs. Madan Singh Karayat alias Maan

Singh, by the court of Special Judge (NDPS Act)/District and

Sessions Judge, District Champawat. By it, the appellant has

been convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”) and sentenced

under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.

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 Application (IA) No.01 of 2023.

7. According to the FIR, on 09.01.2021, charas was

recovered from the possession of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the

entire prosecution case is false; the sample seal, which was
2

allegedly prepared at the spot, bears the FIR number, which was

lodged much after the alleged recovery.

9. Learned State Counsel admits this fact.

10. The Court wanted to know from learned State

Counsel as to how the FIR number was recorded in the sample

seal, 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



Source link