Uttarakhand High Court
Parvez vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGES'S
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2667
BA1 No. 224 of 2026
Parvez ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Lalit Miglani and Mr. Mohit Joshi, learned counsel for
the Applicant.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant–Parvez, S/o Sharafat, R/o Mohalla Pawaodhoi,
Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in
connection with FIR No. 763 of 2025, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “NDPS Act“).
4. Heard Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the Applicant,
and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted
by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. The
record has been perused.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
holds a valid license for sale, distribution, retail stocking, and
exhibition of drugs. It is further submitted that the alleged
substances recovered from the possession of the Applicant are
below commercial quantity. It is also contended that there is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery, and the mandatory
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied
with. It is further submitted that the Applicant is a young person
aged about 25 years and has been in judicial custody since
13.12.2025. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Applicant, who has
been falsely implicated and has no role in the alleged offences, be
enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the
bail application, submitting that there is sufficient evidence against
the Applicant. It is contended that the Applicant does not possess a
valid license, and the recovery has been made in accordance with
law.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, this Court finds that, at this stage, the grounds urged
on behalf of the Applicant for grant of bail appear to be well-
founded. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
15.04.2026
Shiksha
