SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Prempal Maurya - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 209 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate

The court's decision was based on the assessment of the case as fit for bail, considering the lack of previous conviction and the arguments presented by the applicant.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail Application - Applicant-Prempal Maurya - The court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail.

Fact of the Case:

Applicant-Prempal Maurya is in judicial custody in FIR No.317 of 2022, under Sections 8 & 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital. 73.26 gm. smack was allegedly recovered from the applicant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail as it was a case fit for bail, considering the arguments presented and the lack of previous conviction of the applicant.

Issues: The main issue was the bail application of the applicant in a case involving the recovery of narcotics.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of previous conviction of the applicant and the arguments regarding false implication and non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.

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-Prempal Maurya is in judicial custody in FIR No.317 of 2022, under Sections 8 & 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 22.12.2022, 73.26 gm. smack was allegedly recovered from the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated; there is non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; there is no independent witness and he is not a previous convict.

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. Accordingly, 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top