KAILASH SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA /772/2024
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8,20(b)(ii)(c). Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010197682024
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
CRLA /10520/2024
Filing Date
13-12-2024
Registration No
CRLA /772/2024
Registration Date
13-12-2024
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
Petitioner(s)
KAILASH SINGH
Adv. AMIT KAPRI,H S RAWAL,H S RAWAL, H S RAWAL
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
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-12-2024 | FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236 | |
| 17-09-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 16-07-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 15-05-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 09-04-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 |
Orders
Bail Granted - The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed bail applications for appellants Kailash Singh and Girish Kumar, who were convicted under NDPS Act sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C). The court found the drug recovery was legally defective because both appellants were jointly given the search option under Section 50, which violates Supreme Court precedent. The sentence is suspended during appeal pendency, and both must execute personal bonds with two sureties each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Bail Granted - The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed bail applications for appellants Kailash Singh and Girish Kumar, who were convicted under NDPS Act sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C). The court found the drug recovery was legally defective because both appellants were jointly given the search option under Section 50, which violates Supreme Court precedent. The sentence is suspended during appeal pendency, and both must execute personal bonds with two sureties each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts