Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Istekhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 162 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Balwinder Singh, Advocate

The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, and the absence of previous convict status in granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - The court allowed the bail application under Section 8/21/27A/29 of the Act, considering the alleged recovery quantity, lack of independent witness, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, and the applicant's previous convict status.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail in a case involving the recovery of Smack under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the case fit for bail and granted the applicant's release based on the lack of evidence, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, and the absence of previous convict status.
Issues: Bail application in a case involving the recovery of Smack under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of independent witness, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, and the absence of previous convict status in granting bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Istekhar is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.16 of 2023, under Section 8/21/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the FIR, on 03.01.2023, 16.60 grams Smack was recovered from the co-accused.

4. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery; there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act; the alleged recovery quantity is less than commercial and the applicant is not a previous convict.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that the bail rejection order does not reveal that the applicant is a previous convict.

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