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

CASE DISPOSED

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

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20/60

Petitioner(s)

RIYAJUDDIN

Adv. RAJNI RANGWAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

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

04-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Explore other courts

Search Another Case