Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Neeraj Saini - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 211 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Ankur Sharma, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotics
Act Referred
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Applicant's release on bail granted
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Neeraj Saini, was in judicial custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing smack. He sought release on bail, claiming the recovered quantity was less than the commercial quantity and non-compliance with the Act's provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovered quantity was less than the commercial quantity and that the applicant deserved bail, despite his criminal history.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the alleged possession of narcotics.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the quantity of the recovered substance and the applicant's criminal history in deciding to grant bail.
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-Neeraj Saini is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.437 of 2022, under Sections 8/21/27(A)/ 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. 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, 70.65 gm. smack was allegedly recovered from the applicant.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than the commercial quantity; he has not committed any offence and there is non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant has a criminal history, but he 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.
