Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Shahbaz - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 212 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ankur Sharma, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate

The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the circumstances and arguments presented by both parties.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Applicant-Shahbaz - The court granted bail to the applicant who was in judicial custody under Sections 8/21/29/60/27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the recovery of smack and the involvement of the applicant as revealed by the co-accused.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was in judicial custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the recovery of smack and the involvement of the applicant as revealed by the co-accused. The applicant sought release on bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the arguments from both parties and perusing the record, found the case fit for bail and granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the recovery of smack and the involvement of the applicant as revealed by the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances and found the case fit for bail based on the arguments presented by both parties.
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-Shahbaz is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.316 of 2021, under Sections 8/21/29/60/27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Vikasnagar, 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 13.07.2021, 5.46 gm. smack was allegedly recovered from the co-accused and it is they who revealed the name of the applicant, as a person, from whom they purchased.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused from whose possession smack was allegedly recovered has already been granted bail and the applicant is not a previous convict.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that, in fact, the person from whom the alleged smack was recovered named the applicant and revealed the mobile number 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