Uttarakhand High Court
Prem Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2025
Prem Kumar ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order
dated 24.01.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2023, State
of Uttarakhand Vs. Prem Kumar, by the court of Special Sessions Judge
(NDPS Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat. By it, the appellant has been
convicted under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Act
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one year. The appellant has sought
bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
3. According to the prosecution case, on 12.11.2022, 2.50 Kg
charas was allegedly recovered from the appellant.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is in custody since, 12.11.2022; he is an old man of 74 years of
age; the chain of custody of seized article from maalkhana to court and
from court to the FSL is not proved; the GD entry by which the article
was taken for sample and GD entry thereafter, when the article was kept
back in maalkhana is not on record. It is also not shown as to how the
article was taken from maalkhana to FSL. Therefore, it is argued that it is
a case fit for bail.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution
has able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. With regard GD
entries for sampling, as argued, it is not controverted.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly, the age of the appellant, 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.
6. The bail application is allowed.
7. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
8. 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.
3
9. List in due course.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.07.2025
Jitendra