Dismissed

Abdul Khalid v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Dec 2021BA1/1238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail applicant sought release in a narcotic case, alleging violation of Section 50 and false implication. The holding dismissed the application, citing gravity of the offence and prior judicial holdings that Section 50 compliance applies to personal searches, not vehicle seizure during patrolling.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BA1 No.1238 of 2021
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. Dipak Bisht, learned B.H. for the State.
Accused–Abdul Khalid has sought his release
on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.129
of 2021, u/s 8/21/22/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act,
registered at P.S. Rudrapur, Distt. U.S. Nagar.
It is argued by learned counsel that the
accused has been falsely implicated; he is
languishing in jail since 28.02.2021; the arresting
party had prior information about the contraband
but they did not comply with the provision of
Section 50 of the Act; the accused has served about
9 months; although it is stated to be a personal
search but no such contraband article was recovered
from the personal search; he is ready to furnish the
sureties and may be granted bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State
opposed for bail.
As per the FIR and recovery memo, on
28.2.2021, when the police party was on patrolling

duty,
they
received
information
about
the
contraband article brought by accused; immediately
they informed the Drug Inspector; accordingly Dr.
Sudhir Kumar, Drug Inspector reached the spot; he

apprised the accused about his right as envisaged
u/s 50 of the Act; the contraband drugs were
recovered from the Scooty related to the accused. As far as compliance of Section 50 of the Act
is concerned, the Apex Court in ‘State of Punjab v.
Baldev Singh’1999 (6) SCC Page 172 has already
held that if the contraband article recovered from
the personal search, in that situation, compliance of
Section 50 of the Act is necessary; in the present
matter, the contraband article was recovered from
the Scooty and not from the personal search of
accused; the injections which were recovered
certainly falls within the definition of commercial
quantity. Accordingly looking to the gravity of
offence, it is not a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application is thus, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 02.12.2021 Rdang

apprised the accused about his right as envisaged

u/s 50 of the Act; the contraband drugs were

recovered from the Scooty related to the accused.
As far as compliance of Section 50 of the Act

is concerned, the Apex Court in ‘State of Punjab v.

Baldev Singh’1999 (6) SCC Page 172
has already

held that if the contraband article recovered from

the personal search, in that situation, compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is necessary; in the present

matter, the contraband article was recovered from

the Scooty and not from the personal search of

accused; the injections which were recovered

certainly falls within the definition of commercial

quantity. Accordingly looking to the gravity of

offence, it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application is thus, dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
02.12.2021
Rdang

Abdul Khalid v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khalid v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aashit Bala Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vikas Vishwas Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dr. Neetu Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharmenra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chirag Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harjot Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand