ADITYA TYGI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA/308/2024

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/22. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: UKHC010084432024

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

CRLA/4619/2024

Filing Date

07-06-2024

Registration No

CRLA/308/2024

Registration Date

07-06-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

APPEAL ( 3 )

Sub-Category

R.I. ABOVE 10 YEARS & FINE ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/22

Petitioner(s)

ADITYA TYGI

Adv. VIVEK PATHAK,DISHA VASHISTH,DISHA VASHISTH, DISHA VASHISTH

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

10-06-2024

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

20-05-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

15-04-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

18-03-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

10-03-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

Orders

20-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Summary: Bail application granted. The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed bail for Aditya Tyagi, who was convicted under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, finding serious procedural irregularities in the prosecution case—specifically that an FIR number was recorded in the arrest memo prepared at the spot, despite the FIR being lodged much later. The appellant was ordered released on personal bond with two sureties, with sentence execution suspended pending appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Bail application granted. The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed bail for Aditya Tyagi, who was convicted under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, finding serious procedural irregularities in the prosecution case—specifically that an FIR number was recorded in the arrest memo prepared at the spot, despite the FIR being lodged much later. The appellant was ordered released on personal bond with two sureties, with sentence execution suspended pending appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case