Uttarakhand High Court
Kapil Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:1531
BA1 No. 213 of 2026
Kapil Kumar --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Ms. Shumayla Zafri and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsels for
the Applicant.
2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant –
Kapil Kumar, aged about 24 years, S/o Dharampal Singh, R/o Gram
Manoharwala, Thana Najibabad, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. The
Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 0022 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Thalisain, District Pauri Garhwal, under
Sections 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act.
4. Heard Ms. Shumayla Zafri and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned
counsels for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State. Perused the record.
5. As per the order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2026, upon the
submission of learned counsel for the Applicant regarding certain
anomalies in the recovery memo, clarification was sought from the State.
However, the said clarification has not been placed before this Court in
compliance with the aforesaid order.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed out that the
recovery memo does not clearly explain as to how the name of the
vehicle, from which the alleged contraband Ganja, weighing 60 kg in
five bags, was recovered, came to be mentioned in the recovery memo.
7. The Applicant is alleged to have been in possession of contraband
Ganja, which is defined under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which
reads as follows:
“ganja, that is, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant
(excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the
tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and
8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the material available on record, and the fact that the clarification
sought by this Court with regard to the anomalies in the recovery memo
has not been brought on record by the State, this Court finds that the
matter requires consideration. At this stage, 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.
9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon his executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
“(a) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence
any witness;
(b) The Applicant shall appear before the trial court on each and
every date fixed unless exempted by the court concerned.
(c) In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.”
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
10.03.2026
Shiksha
