Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. December

Babu Shah vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 31 December 2024• Citation: BA1/2445/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                          First Bail Application No.2445  of 2024                   
                  Babu  Shah                            …..….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  State of Uttarakhand                   ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                       Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant.          
                       Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the      
                       State.                                                       
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            The  applicant is in  judicial custody in FIR           
                  No.46   of  2024,  dated  10.02.2024,   under   Sections          
                  8/21/29    of  the  Narcotic  Drugs   and  Psychotropic           
                  Substances  Act, 1985,  Police Station Khatima, District          
                  Udham   Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.           
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        According  to the FIR,  Smack  in  commercial           
                  quantity was  allegedly recovered from the possession of          
                  the applicant.                                                    
                  4.        Learned   counsel  for  the  applicant  would           
                  submit  that the case is false; as per the prosecution, the       
                  Inventory Report  was prepared  at the spot and it bears          

                                              2                                     
                  the FIR number,  which was lodged much  after the alleged         
                  recovery.                                                         
                  5.        Learned  State counsel  would  admit that the           
                  Inventory Report  was prepared  at the spot and it bears          
                  the  FIR   number.   But,  according  to  her,  as  per           
                  instructions, the  FIR   number   was   written on  the           
                  Inventory Report post lodging of the FIR by red ink. She          
                  would  also submit that this fact is nowhere mentioned in         
                  the  General  Diary  entry  that the  FIR  number   was           
                  recorded in the Inventory Report post lodging of the FIR.         
                  6.        If Inventory Report was prepared  at the spot,          
                  how   could it bear the FIR  number   which  was lodged           
                  much   after the alleged recovery? There is no satisfactory       
                  reply. What is told is that the FIR number was recorded in        
                  the  Inventory Report  post lodging of the FIR,  but no           
                  document,  as such has been produced  which could reveal          
                  it. It makes out the case for bail.                               
                  7.        Having  considered, this Court is of the view           
                  that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to      
                  be enlarged on bail.                                              
                  8.        The bail application is allowed.                        

                                              3                                     
                  9.        Let the applicant be  released on bail, on his          
                  executing  a personal bond  and  furnishing two  reliable         
                  sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the     
                  court concerned.                                                  
                                                   (Ravindra Maithani, J.)          
                                                        31.12.2024                  
                  Sanjay                                                            
                        Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA                          
                  SANJAY KANOJIA D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , e o 5 = 0 H e5 IG 0 H b4 C 9 O 5 U 96 R 5 T 2 O 0 F 6 9 U 8 T e T ff A 8 R 7 A e K 0 H a0 A 8 N b D b , d o 5 u 0 = 4 H 68 IG 6 H df C 4 O d1 U a R fc T 6 O 0 F f5 U 4 T a T 2 A 87 R 8 A 3 K 1 H d A e N c4 D 6 , fe,
                        postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,                          
                        serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A
                        7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA                               
                        Date: 2025.01.07 18:27:54 +05'30'