SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(UK) 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Ganesh Chamoli - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2857 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022

Act Referred

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.8, S.21

Headnote

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail Application - Applicant sought release on bail under Section 8/21 of the Act

Fact of the Case:

Applicant sought release on bail in a case involving the recovery of 5.57 grams of smack from his possession

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail, considering the circumstances and the alleged recovered quantity

Issues: Applicant's alleged false implication, previous involvement in a case, and the quantity of the recovered substance

Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the applicant's lack of previous conviction, the quantity of the recovered substance, and the fitment for 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

Advocates appeared:
Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Ganesh Chamoli is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.27 of 2022, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Chamba, District- Tehri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the FIR, on 25.11.2022, 5.57grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated; he is not a previous convict; the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant has been involved in one case in the past.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is on bail in that case.

7. 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.

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.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top