Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Salman & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2680, 2681, 2684 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Gaurav Singh, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Shakib Husain, Advocate

The importance of legally admissible evidence in connecting the accused with the alleged crime in bail applications.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Recovery of Smack - Connection with Co-accused - Legally admissible evidence - Bail granted
Fact of the Case:

The applicants were in judicial custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for the recovery of Smack from a co-accused who implicated them. They sought release on bail.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was no legally admissible evidence connecting the applicants with the co-accused and granted bail based on the entirety of facts.
Issues: Recovery of Smack, Connection with Co-accused, Legally admissible evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of legally admissible evidence connecting the applicants with the co-accused and deemed the cases fit for bail.
Final Decision: The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Since all these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order.

2. Applicants Salman, Taiyyab and Waseem are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.99 of 2022, under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail.

3. According to the FIR, on 17.09.2022, 10 grams Smack was recovered from co-accused Sahib. It is the case of the prosecution that Sahib revealed that he got the material from Salman, who procured it from Taiyyab. It is also the case when the co-accused Sahib was intercepted, he was pillion rider in a motorcycle driven by the applicant Waseem.

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

5. It is argued that nothing was recovered from the applicants. There is no legally admissible evidence, which may connect the applicant with the co-accused Sahib, merely based on the statement of co-accused Sahib, they have been implicated.

6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that these are the cases fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7. The bail applications are allowed.

8. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document