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

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

BA1 /1594/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

BA1 /352/2026

Registration Date

09-03-2026

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

06th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20

Petitioner(s)

ANMOL SINGH

Adv. SANJAY KUMAR CHANDEL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

11-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

06-04-2026

ORDER MATTERS -17

25-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

06-04-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case