RIYAJUDDIN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/1779/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20/60. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010150042025
Filing Number
BA1/7732/2025
Filing Date
20-09-2025
Registration No
BA1/1779/2025
Registration Date
20-09-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING THE TRIAL ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RIYAJUDDIN
Adv. RAJNI RANGWAL
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-09-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 12-05-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 17-02-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 10-01-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 30-12-2025 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
Orders
The court granted bail to applicant Riyajuddin, arrested for possession of 207.5 grams of charas under the NDPS Act, finding that material discrepancies in the prosecution case (including timing inconsistencies in recovery documents and lack of independent witnesses) created reasonable doubt. The court held that as the drug quantity was below commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and the applicant's permanent residence and lack of absconding risk warranted bail with standard conditions including regular court attendance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted bail to applicant Riyajuddin, arrested for possession of 207.5 grams of charas under the NDPS Act, finding that material discrepancies in the prosecution case (including timing inconsistencies in recovery documents and lack of independent witnesses) created reasonable doubt. The court held that as the drug quantity was below commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and the applicant's permanent residence and lack of absconding risk warranted bail with standard conditions including regular court attendance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts