Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Ashraf - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 542 of 2024
Decided On : 26-06-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - The court found that the non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the absence of a signed recovery memo by a Gazetted Police Officer warranted the granting of bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in judicial custody for allegedly possessing 400 grams of smack, charged under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the non-compliance with Section 42 of the Act and the lack of a signed recovery memo by a Gazetted Police Officer, leading to the conclusion that the applicant was entitled to bail.
Issues: Whether the non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the absence of a signed recovery memo justified the granting of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compliance with procedural requirements under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is crucial, and failure to adhere to these provisions can impact the legality of the arrest and subsequent detention.
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 Case Crime No.39 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 13.02.2024, 400 grams smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that before search, a Gazetted Police Officer was called at the place of incident, who signed the consent memo, under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, as such, compliance of Section 42 of the Act is not required.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, at it, would submit that the recovery memo has not been signed by the Gazetted Police Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery was made in the presence of the Gazetted Police Officer.
7. Learned State Counsel admits that the recovery memo has not been signed by the Gazetted Police Officer. It is admitted also that the compliance of Section 42 of the Act has not been made.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics is strictly governed by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, requiring the court to find reasonable grounds for....
The significance of contraband quantity and compliance with Section 50 govern the grant of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court's discretion in granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the circumstances and arguments presented by both parties.
Possession of less than commercial quantity of narcotics can be a factor in granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court's decision was based on the assessment of the case as fit for bail, considering the lack of previous conviction and the arguments presented by the applicant.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regarding bail applications and the consideration of the quant....
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the alleged recovered quantity, lack of previous conviction, and non-compliance of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Su....
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
