Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Ameer Ahmad @ Sehanshah Mama - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 156 of 2024
Decided On : 03-07-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The court emphasized the necessity for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to re-offend. The prolonged custody without witness examination influenced the court's decision to grant bail, highlighting the balance between the rights of the accused and the prosecution's duty to expedite trials.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody under FIR No. 339 of 2022 for the alleged recovery of commercial quantity of charas. This is the second bail application after the first was rejected on merits. The charge sheet was submitted, and several witnesses were examined, but no witness has been examined for over six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the lengthy custody of the applicant without witness examination and acknowledged the State's admission of these facts. It recognized that while Section 37 of the Act imposes restrictions on bail, it does not permit indefinite detention without trial.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, considering the duration of custody and the lack of witness examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prolonged custody without trial and the absence of witness examination constituted reasonable grounds for granting bail, despite the serious nature of the charges under the Act.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 339 of 2022, under Section 8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant. First bail application was rejected on 27.12.2023 on merits.
4. According to the FIR, charas in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant on 20.11.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after his arrest, the applicant is in jail for a long; charge sheet was submitted in the case on 01.05.2023; charge was framed on 17.05.2023; PW1 was examined on 19.08.2023, PW2 was examined on 09.10.2023 and PW3 was examined on 29.11.2023 But since then, no witness has been examined. It is also submitted that the applicant has not sought any adjournment.
6. Learned State counsel admits these facts.
7. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of charas and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.
8. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. For more than six months in between not even a single witness was examined.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The court established that 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 Psy....
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the case can lead to the granting of bail, even in serious offenses under ....
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.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases, under the provisions of the Narcotic Dru....
The court established that while Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the right to a timely trial is paramount, and undue delay in procee....
In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, bail can only be granted if the court is convinced of the accused's non-guilt and that ....
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases under Section 37 of the A....
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
