I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

27^TH OCTOBER, 2025

SECOND BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.202 of 2025

Rashid Hussain alias Rihan Pachhis ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Kumar

Pandey, Advocate with

Mrs. Sheetal Selwal,

Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu,

Additional Advocate General assisted by

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj,

Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant- Rashid Hussain alias Rihan Pachhis

is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”) in Case Crime No.210 of 2022, registered at

Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital.

2. The First Bail Application (No.1842 of 2023)

was rejected on 05.07.2024.

3. According to the prosecution, on 05.07.2022, the applicant was apprehended by the police on

suspicion. The police recovered 25 Buprenorphine injections from his bag.

4. Heard Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

5. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated by the police. The said contraband was not recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery was planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery from the possession of the applicant. This fact also supports the submissions of the applicant. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. The charge-sheet was filed on 11.01.2023. The charge was framed on 05.04.2023. The prosecution has shown twelve witnesses. Only four witnesses out of twelve have been examined till date, whereas, the applicant is in custody since 05.07.2022.

6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, has opposed the bail application. He submitted that the recovered psychotropic substance fall under the category of the commercial quantity. However, he fairly conceded that only four witnesses out of twelve proposed witnesses have been examined so far.

7. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1985, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha, 2023 0 Supreme ( SC) 707

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The Second Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant – Rashid Hussain alias Rihan Pachhis be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

11. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail, granted to the applicant.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt:27.10.2025 Neha NEHA D D i N g : i t c a = l I y N s , i o g = n H e I d G b H y C N O E U H R A T B O IS F H T UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8 038ee7326b08b2d0e018b01be753f014 BISHT