BA1/899/2025 on 14 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/899/2025 on 14 July, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                 2025:UHC:6058
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               BA1/899/2025

                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Siddharth Bisth, learned A.G.A.
and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned
Brief Holder for the State.

3. Present applicant Riyasat Hussain
@ Anduwa is praying for regular bail in
relation to FIR dated 07.04.2025,
bearing FIR No. 0070 of 2025 registered
at P.S. Banbhoolpura, District Nainital
wherein the present applicant along with
one Mukim have been implicated for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/22
read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated
and the alleged prohibited contraband
drug (injections) which has been shown
to be recovered from the applicant are
false and planted one. He further
submits that applicant is languishing in
jail since 26.04.2025, and furthermore,
there is no substantial compliance of
Sections 50, 52, 55 and 58 of the NDPS
Act. He further submits that not only
this, even there is no compliance of
Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Apart from
this, he submits that there is no FSL
report and the applicant is suffering from
HIV disease. He further submits that
there is no recovery from the applicant
and the applicant is an accused of
Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the prosecution wherein it has been
denied that there is no substantial
compliance of mandatory provisions of
2025:UHC:6058
the NDPS Act. Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A.
also submits that that applicant is a
habitual offender and has a previous
history of more than 8 cases of the same
nature, therefore enlarging the applicant
on bail is not in the interest of society.

6. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and further taking into
consideration that the applicant is a
habitual offender having long criminal
history and most of the cases pertain to
the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view
that the applicant does not deserve for
bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is
rejected.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
14.07.2025
Parul
2025:UHC:6058