Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2025)
In
CRLA No. 271 of 2025
Reshma
--Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
3. The matter is fixed for hearing on the bail application filed
by the Appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail
Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2025).
5. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the learned
Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat
in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2020 (arising out of FIR No.
55 of 2020), titled State vs. Reshma, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station
Champawat, District Champawat.
6. By the said judgment, the Appellant has been convicted
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to
undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo six months of simple imprisonment. It has also been
directed that the period of detention already undergone by the
Appellant shall be set off against the sentence awarded.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant remained on bail during the course of trial and never
misused the liberty so granted. It is further submitted that the
Appellant has been falsely implicated and is in custody since
24.03.2025. It is also submitted that the alleged contraband, i.e.,
charas weighing 830 grams, falls below the commercial quantity.
Further submission is that the place of alleged recovery, as shown
in the FIR, is a densely populated area, yet the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to the alleged
recovery, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. It is further
contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have
not been complied with.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail
application, submitting that the Appellant was apprehended red-
handed with 830 grams of illegal contraband (charas), and on the
basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, her involvement in
the commission of the offence has been duly established.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, sufficient grounds exist
for granting bail to the Appellant during the pendency of the
appeal.
10. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. The
Appellant shall be released on bail during the pendency of the
present criminal appeal, upon her executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned Court concerned.
11. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a
ground for seeking unnecessary adjournments or for delaying the
disposal of the present criminal appeal.
12. List this case on 29.06.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
15.04.2026
Shiksha