BHAGWAN DEVI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA /534/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010144842025
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
CRLA /7442/2025
Filing Date
12-09-2025
Registration No
CRLA /534/2025
Registration Date
12-09-2025
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
Single Bench
Category
APPEAL ( 3 )
Sub-Category
R.I. ABOVE 10 YEARS & FINE ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHAGWAN DEVI
Adv. AMIT KAPRI,VIKAS PANDE,VIKAS PANDE, ,VIKAS PANDE
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah
FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-09-2025 | FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236 | |
| 25-03-2026 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 12-11-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand granted bail to appellants Bhagwan Devi and Lakhwindar Singh, who were convicted under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for alleged charas possession. The court found critical procedural irregularities in the investigation—specifically, the sample seal bore the FIR number despite being prepared before the FIR was lodged—raising serious doubts about case credibility. The appellants must execute personal bonds with two sureties each and will remain released during pendency of their appeals, with sentence execution suspended. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand granted bail to appellants Bhagwan Devi and Lakhwindar Singh, who were convicted under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for alleged charas possession. The court found critical procedural irregularities in the investigation—specifically, the sample seal bore the FIR number despite being prepared before the FIR was lodged—raising serious doubts about case credibility. The appellants must execute personal bonds with two sureties each and will remain released during pendency of their appeals, with sentence execution suspended. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts