SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(UK) 417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Shanu @ Raja @ Langda - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2825 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Shetal Selwal, Advocate, B.P. S. Mer, Advocate

The decision emphasized the importance of considering the entirety of facts and the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant in granting bail.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Enlargement on Bail

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail in a case involving recovery of narcotic substances and the revelation of his involvement by a co-accused.

Finding of the Court:

The Court, after considering the entirety of facts, concluded that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Issues: The main issue was the applicant's eligibility for bail based on the evidence against him.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that apart from the co-accused's statement, there was no other material against the applicant, leading to the decision to grant bail.

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 Shanu @ Raja @ Langda is in judicial custody in FIR No. 286 of 2022, under Section 8/22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the case, on 02.09.2022, Narcotic substances in commercial quantity in the form of various injections was recovered from co-accused Roshan. It is the prosecution case that the co-accused revealed the name of the applicant, who happened to be her son, as the person, who get her available those narcotic substances injections.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that except the statement, there is no other material against the applicant, which makes out a case for bail..

5. Learned State counsel was given time to get instructions as to what is the material available against the applicant?

6. Learned State counsel would submit that co-accused has named the applicant.

7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top