Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Harish Bisht - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No.660 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court analyzed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly focusing on the distinction between commercial and non-commercial quantities of narcotics. The court found that the applicant was in possession of a quantity exceeding the commercial threshold, which influenced the decision to deny bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the implications of the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in judicial custody for possessing 21 Kg. of ganja, exceeding the commercial quantity, as per FIR registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The applicant sought bail, arguing the improbability of possession while driving and noting that a co-accused had been granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the weight of the contraband was confirmed in court, and the applicant possessed a quantity classified as more than commercial. The court acknowledged the arguments but concluded that they did not warrant bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the quantity of narcotics involved and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that possession of a quantity exceeding the commercial threshold under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act justified the denial of bail, reinforcing the legal principle that serious offenses involving narcotics carry significant implications for bail considerations.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Satpuli, District Pauri 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 05.03.2024, the police were on patrolling duty, they were checking the vehicle, a car driven by the applicant reached at the spot, in the front passenger seat, the applicant has kept a bag. The Bag had 21 Kg. ganja in it. According to the FIR, from the rear seat also 9.400 Kg. ganja was also recovered from the co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the exact weight of the contraband is not given in the FIR. It is highly improbable that a person while driving a vehicle would hold something with his hand. The co-accused has already been granted bail.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the weight of the recovered article was done in the court and as per report, it was 20 kg. and 220 gram ganja that was recovered from the applicant. Out of which, 200 gram sample was sent for analysis. It is a case of chance recovery.
6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
7. According to the prosecution, both the applicant and the co-accused had separate ganja with them. The co-accused had less than commercial quantity of ganja, whereas, the applicant who was driving the vehicle has ganja which is more than commercial quantity.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
Possession of narcotics exceeding the commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is a critical factor in denying bail.
The court emphasized the cumulative conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, requiring reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to re-offend.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
Prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
