IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Vishal Kumar alias Vicky – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2073 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court granted bail to the applicant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted the lack of independent witnesses and the applicant's clean criminal record, concluding that prolonged incarceration was unjustified given the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Vishal Kumar alias Vicky, was in judicial custody for allegedly possessing 25 injections of Buprenorphine, a narcotic substance, recovered from his bag. He claimed false implication and highlighted the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not secured independent witnesses and only one witness had been examined. The applicant had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident, reducing the risk of absconding.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the recovery of narcotics in commercial quantity and the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha, which stated that prolonged incarceration infringes on the fundamental right to personal liberty, and conditional liberty should be favored unless compelling reasons exist.
Result: The court allowed the bail application, permitting the applicant's release on bail with specific conditions to ensure his attendance at trial and prevent interference with the case.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. The present Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No. 165 of 2023, registered at police station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Applicant-Vishal Kumar alias Vicky is in judicial custody under Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”).
3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.03.2023, 25 injections of Buprenorphine of two ml each were recovered from the bag of the applicant.
4. Heard Mr. A.M. Saklani, learned counsel with Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
5. Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The alleged place of recovery is a very heavy crowded area, but, no independent witness or public witness was secured at the time of the alleged recovery. C.C.T.V. cameras were installed at various places, but, no C.C.T.V. footage has been filed. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since 26.03.2023, but, only one witness has been examined by the prosecution till date.
6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the bail application and submitted that the recovered Buprenorphine is in commercial quantity. However, he has conceded that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, and, only one witness has been examined till date.
7. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha, 2023 (0) Supreme (SC) 707, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
10. The First Bail Application (No. 2073 of 2023) is allowed.
11. Let the applicant-Vishal Kumar alias Vicky 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 with the following conditions:
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
12. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
The court established that personal liberty is a fundamental right that should not be curtailed without compelling justification, particularly in cases where the prosecution's evidence is weak.
The fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India should override the statutory embargo created under the NDPS Act in cases of prolonged incarceration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the adverse inference against the prosecution due to the absence of the material witness and the implications of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in gran....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.