ANMOL SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/352/2026
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010034442026
Filing Number
BA1/1594/2026
Filing Date
09-Mar-2026
Registration No
BA1/352/2026
Registration Date
09-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
06-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ANMOL SINGH
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR CHANDEL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Anmol Singh, accused under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, finding sufficient grounds at the preliminary stage due to ambiguity regarding the exact nature and quantity of the seized substance. The court noted that the recovery memo's description of the material as containing seeds and non-qualifying parts creates a debatable issue about whether it meets the strict statutory definition of "ganja," thus creating reasonable doubt about the applicability of commercial quantity provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Apr-2026
Order Matters -17
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
25-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
25-Mar-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
11-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. BA1/352/2026
The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Anmol Singh, accused under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, finding sufficient grounds at the preliminary stage due to ambiguity regarding the exact nature and quantity of the seized substance. The court noted that the recovery memo's description of the material as containing seeds and non-qualifying parts creates a debatable issue about whether it meets the strict statutory definition of "ganja," thus creating reasonable doubt about the applicability of commercial quantity provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts