BA1/802/2025 on 15 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/802/2025 on 15 July, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                          2025:UHC:6132
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               BA1/802/2025
                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned Legal Aid
Counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State.

3. Present applicant ‘Gopal Jaiswal, son of late Shri
Jugal Kishore,’ is praying for regular bail in relation to
First Information Report dated 20.10.2024 bearing FIR
No. 0019 of 2024, Police Station – Munnikireti, District

– Tehri Garhwal, wherein present applicant has been
implicated for the offences punishable under Section
8/21 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
present applicant is innocent and has falsely been
implicated and the contraband smack, which is shown
to be recovered from the present applicant is non
commercial quantity i.e. 12.02 gram.

5. He further submits that there is no proper
substantial compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of
the NDPS Act.

6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by
the State wherein detail of previous criminal history of
the applicant has been given. As per the counter
affidavit, applicant has long previous criminal history
of 7 cases and first case is of 2010 and out of these
cases, 5 criminal cases related to NDPS Act. Apart
from this, from the present applicant alleged
contraband, which is shown to be recovered, is
“smack”, which effects the young generation
particularly the students nowadays. Smack effects
every part of a person’s life and smack addition often
leads to a loss of interest in daily routine was
breakdown in relationship and financial and legal
problems. Therefore, taking into consideration that the
applicant is indulged in such activities since 2010, this
Court is of the view that the applicant does not
deserves for bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
15.07.2025.

SKS
2025:UHC:6132