Non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, can be a ground for grant of bail.

Headnote:
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 8/21 - BAIL GRANTED - NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 50 OF THE ACT - CO-ACCUSED GRANTED BAIL - NO PREVIOUS CONVICTION
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested for possession of 63.55 grams of smack under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The co-accused, from whom smack was also recovered, had already been granted bail. The applicant had no previous convictions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant deserved to be released on bail as there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and the co-accused had already been granted bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, despite non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and the co-accused had already been granted bail.
Final Decision: The applicant was granted bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No.2689 of 2022

Raja @ Irfan

...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

...Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. B.P. S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Raja @ Irfan is in judicial custody in

FIR/Case Crime No. 543 of 2022, under Section 8/21 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(“the Act”), Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. He

has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 10.11.2022, 63.55

gram smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of

the applicant.

It is submitted that it is a case of non

compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The co-accused from

whom, smack was also recovered at the same time, have

already been granted bail. The applicant is not a previous

convict.

Learned State counsel would submit that the

bail rejection order does not reveal any previous conviction

of the applicant.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

03.01.2023

Jitendra