Uttarakhand High Court
Jaspal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 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:2417
BA1 No. 424 of 2026
Jaspal ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
2. Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant–Jaspal, aged about 22 years, S/o Vikram Singh, R/o
Village Pratappur No. 7, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh
Nagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/FIR No. 04 of 2026, registered at Police Station Ranikhet,
District Almora, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
4. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the
Applicant, and Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State. The
record has been perused.
5. The primary grounds for bail, as advanced on behalf of the
Applicant, are that the Applicant and co-accused persons have been
falsely implicated; that the alleged recovery is a joint recovery, but
no specific attribution has been made as to which bag belonged to
which accused; that the contraband was allegedly recovered in four
separate bags weighing 13.292 kg, 14.556 kg, 21.940 kg, and
14.150 kg respectively, totalling 66.228 kg, but there is no clear and
conscious possession attributable to the Applicant. It is further
submitted that, as per the FIR and recovery memo, the alleged
contraband (ganja) was loaded on the top of the vehicle in which the
accused persons, namely the Applicant and the co-accused persons
Anmol Singh, and Vikas, were travelling. Co-accused- Vikas is
stated to have been driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP
23 BT 0365 (Hyundai Aura).
6. Per contra, the present Bail Application has been opposed by
the State on the ground that a total of 66.228 kg of contraband,
namely ganja, was recovered from the accused persons, which falls
within the category of commercial quantity.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, this Court finds that sufficient grounds for grant of
bail are made out at this stage. Prima facie, the contraband cannot
conclusively be said to be ‘ganja’ as defined under Section 2(iii)(b)
of the N.D.P.S. Act, which defines ganja as the flowering or fruiting
tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when not
accompanied by such tops.
8. In the present case, the recovery memo describes the seized
substance as “gudedaar”. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits
that the said term appears to be a typographical or clerical error, and
in fact, the intended word may have been “gucchhedar” (clustered).
Even if the said description is read as “gucchhedar”, the material is
described as consisting of clustered green substance containing
seeds. Such description prima facie indicates the presence of seeds
and other non-qualifying parts, which do not fall within the strict
definition of ganja under the Act.
9. Since the punishment under the N.D.P.S. Act is dependent
upon the quantity of contraband, and as seeds and leaves (when not
accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops) are to be excluded, the
actual weight of the contraband becomes a matter of determination.
This creates a debatable issue at this stage regarding the exact nature
and quantity of the seized substance.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and
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.
11. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
12. 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.
13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
06.04.2026
Shiksha