The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the alleged recovered quantity, lack of previous conviction, and non-compliance of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in allowing the bail application.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Applicant Jahid Saifi - The court allowed the bail application for the applicant who was in judicial custody under Section 8/21 of the Act after considering the alleged recovered quantity, lack of previous conviction, and non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

Applicant Jahid Saifi sought release on bail in a case under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where 31.16 grams of smack was allegedly recovered from his possession.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the case fit for bail and concluded that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Issues: Bail application in a case involving possession of narcotics under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the alleged recovered quantity, lack of previous conviction, and non-compliance of the provisions of the Act in allowing the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Jahid Saifi is in judicial custody in FIR No.319 of 2022, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act'), Police Station Mukhani, District- Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant appeared through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, on 22.12.2022, 31.16 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; he is not a previous convict; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the bail rejection order does not reveal any previous conviction of the applicant.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document