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. July

Lalit Thapa vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 31 July 2024• Citation: BA3/47/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                           Third  Bail Application No.47 of 2024                    
                  Lalit Thapa                              ….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  State of Uttarakhand                   ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                       Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant.           
                       Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.                   
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.318          
                  of 2022, under  Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and           
                  Psychotropic   Substances   Act,  1985,  Police  Station          
                  Banbhulpura,  District Nainital. He has sought his release        
                  on bail.                                                          
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        This  is  the  third bail  application of the           
                  applicant.  The  first bail application was dismissed as          
                  withdrawn  on 05.04.2023  and the second bail application         
                  was  dismissed as withdrawn on 04.12.2023.                        
                  4.        Learned   counsel  for  the  applicant  would           
                  submit   that  the  charge   sheet  was  submitted   on           
                  09.12.2022;  charges  were framed  on  28.02.2022; PW1            

                                              2                                     
                  was  examined  on 05.09.2023 and  PW3  was examined  on           
                  29.01.2024.  But thereafter, till date, no witness has been       
                  examined.                                                         
                  5.        These  factual aspects have not been denied by          
                  the learned State counsel.                                        
                  6.        It is a case pertaining to recovery of commercial       
                  quantity of the  narcotic substance and  in such  cases,          
                  Section 37  of the Act makes  specific provisions. Bail in        
                  such  cases  may  not  be granted, unless  the Court  is          
                  satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing         
                  that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he        
                  is not likely to commit any  offence while on bail. But,          
                  denial  of bail does not  give unfettered liberty to the          
                  prosecution  to  keep   a  person  in  custody  without           
                  conducting a trial.                                               
                  7.        The  applicant is in custody for more  than a           
                  year. In between, for more than six months, no progress           
                  was  made  in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It       
                  commands   the Court to release the applicant on bail.            
                  8.        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.                                              

                                              3                                     
                  9.        The third bail application is allowed.                  
                  10.       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)           
                                                          31.07.2024                
                  Ravi