SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1017338

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
JEESHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Office Notes, SL. Date reports, No. orders or COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1 No. 36 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present applicant Jeeshan, S/o Aarif is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 14.11.2024, registered as FIR No. 0045 of 2024 at P.S. Bhatrauj Khan District Almora wherein the present applicant along with other person, namely, Pankaj Singh has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 read with 60 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 contraband which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is 25.825 kg i.e. Ganja which is a commercial one. He submits that there is no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act since as per the FIR, the search was done on the basis of the information of Constable 42 Parvez Ahmad and Constable 471 Birendra Bisht but the information, as received, was not recorded in writing which is a mandatory requirement in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top