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

    0
    20
    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

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here