Shamim vs State of Uttarakhand - 2023 Supreme(UK) 59

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Shamim - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 97 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, Hemant Singh, Advocate, V.S. Rathore, Advocate

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Applicant sought release on bail under Section 29 of the NDPS Act - Court considered evidence and granted bail based on lack of material evidence against the applicant
Fact of the Case:

Applicant-Shamim is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 499 of 2020 under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, for alleged involvement in purchasing smack
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was no material evidence against the applicant except the statement of the co-accused, and granted bail based on lack of evidence
Issues: Bail application under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, consideration of evidence, telephonic conversation between the applicant and co-accused
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of material evidence against the applicant, except for the statement of the co-accused, and the telephonic conversation between the applicant and co-accused
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Shamim is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 499 of 2020, under Sections 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, 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 10.08.2020 smack was recovered from one Salman and Irfan. According to the FIR, they revealed that the applicant had given money to purchase the smack and they were to deliver the smack to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Irfan, one of the co-accused, from whose possession, alleged recovery was made, has already been granted bail. There is no evidence against the applicant except the statement of the co-accused.

5. Learned State Counsel was given time to get instruction as to what is the material evidence against the applicant. He would submit that there is a statement of co-accused.

6. In fact, bail rejection order also reveals that the applicant and co-accused had telephonic conversation on the date of incident.

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 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