Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Jodhveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2871 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Applicant Jodhveer Singh - Release on bail granted
Fact of the Case:
Applicant Jodhveer Singh sought release on bail in judicial custody under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with FIR No.316 of 2022, where 10.150 Kg ganja was allegedly recovered from the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, found that the applicant's case was fit for bail and deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the recovery of ganja from the applicant, the absence of previous conviction, and the quantity of the allegedly recovered substance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the absence of previous conviction, the allegedly recovered quantity being less than commercial, and the lack of independent witnesses.
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.
Mehboob Rahi, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sonika Khulbe, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Jodhveer Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No.316 of 2022, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kunda, District- Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 08.12.2022, 10.150 Kg ganja was allegedly recovered from the applicant.
4. It is the case of the applicant that he is not a previous convict; there is no independent witness; the allegedly recovered quantity is less than commercial.
5. Learned State Counsel 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 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.
