Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Rahul - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 214 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2023

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

The court's discretion in granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Bail - The court allowed the bail application of the applicant who was in judicial custody under Sections 8/21/27(a)/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after considering the circumstances and finding it to be a fit case for bail.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail while in judicial custody under Sections 8/21/27(a)/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after smack and cash allegedly related to the proceeds of crime were recovered from him and the co-accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the facts and submissions, found it to be a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the applicant on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi:
Final Decision: The bail application of the applicant was allowed, and he was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Rahul 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, 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 appeared through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, on 22.11.2022 smack was recovered from the co-accused.

4. It is the prosecution case that, in fact, at the time of arrest, the applicant and co-accused revealed that they are into the business of smack, some cash was allegedly recovered from the applicant, which, according to the prosecution, are proceeds of crime.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the person from whose possession smack was recovered has already been granted bail today itself. He is not a previous convict.

6. These facts are not denied by learned State Counsel.

7. 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.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. 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