Allowed¶4

Mohd Tasleem v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2025BA1/916/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail — NDPS Act, Section 8/20 read with Section 60; ganja 5.537 kg below commercial quantity; FIR No. 0105 of 2025, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar; custody since 11.03.2025; charge-sheet filed 05.05.2025; no custodial interrogation; monthly police-station reporting condition; neutral citation 2025:UHC:6805; decided 01.08.2025 by Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; condition to appear before the nearest police station on the 1st day of every month with the concerned SHO recording presence; prosecution free to move an application for cancellation of bail if the applicant indulges in any criminal activity in future. ¶4

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/916/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
			1. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Mohd. Tasleem, son of Shri Nawab’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 11.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0105 of 2025, Police Station – Ranipur, District – Haridwar wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 read with Section 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and the contraband Ganja, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant is below commercial quantity i.e. 5.537 kg. 5. He further submits that there is no substantial compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025 and now, the charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.05.2025, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant has criminal history of one case relating to Section 304 IPC in which he is already bailed out. 6. On the other side, learned AGA for the State has not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025 and applicant is already bailed out in criminal case related to Section 304 IPC. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025 and charge-sheet has already been filed therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation, and the contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the applicant is below commercial quantity, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘‘Mohd. Tasleem,son of Shri

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/916/2025
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2.
Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned AGA with Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder the State.
3.
Present applicant ‘Mohd. Tasleem, son of Shri
Nawab’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First
Information Report dated 11.03.2025 bearing FIR No.
0105 of 2025, Police Station – Ranipur, District –
Haridwar
wherein
present
applicant
has
been
implicated for the offences punishable under Section
8/20 read with Section 60 of the NDPS Act.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
present applicant is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case and the contraband
Ganja, which is shown to be recovered from the
present applicant is below commercial quantity i.e.
5.537 kg.
5.
He further submits that there is no substantial
compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act
and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025
and now, the charge-sheet has already been filed on
05.05.2025, therefore, there is no need of custodial
interrogation and the applicant has criminal history of
one case relating to Section 304 IPC in which he is
already bailed out.
6.
On the other side, learned AGA for the State has
not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already
been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial
interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since
11.03.2025 and applicant is already bailed out in
criminal case related to Section 304 IPC.
7.
After hearing the arguments of learned counsel
for the parties, and further taking into consideration
that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025
and charge-sheet has already been filed therefore,
there is no need of custodial interrogation, and the
contraband, which is shown to be recovered from the
applicant is below commercial quantity, this Court is
of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9.
Let the applicant ‘‘Mohd. Tasleem,son of Shri

Mohd Tasleem v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Tasleem v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Hussain Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanit Alias Sumit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Aditya Alias Sagar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jatin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pooja Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yogesh Vs State of Uttarakhand