High Court at Nainital dismissed the third bail application of Kheempal Singh. The court held that the recovery of commercial quantity of charas from a bag in a sudden intercept case was not fit for bail, noting that Section 50 was inapplicable to bag recovery.
Third bail application rejected; Applicant remains in judicial custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Third Bail Application No.6 of 2022
Kheempal Singh ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Veer Kunwar Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Kheempal Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No.112 of 2020, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”), Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2
police. The movement of the applicant was found suspicious, when he was questioned and the vehicle was searched, there was a bag below the seat of the driver. According to the applicant there was Charas in the bag. There were other passengers in the vehicle. The applicant was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and in his presence, the bag was opened and total 1.567 Kg Charas was recovered.
3
patrolling, the police intercepted the vehicle driven by the applicant. A bag located below the seat, in which, according to the applicant, there was Charas . The police party gives option of search to the applicant and thereafter, according to the recovery memo he was searched before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.04.2022
Sanjay
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving sudden recovery of commercial quantity of charas under NDS Act.
Whether non-compliance of Section 42 and lack of independent witnesses in recovery make bail appropriate.
Whether the third bail application in an NDPS case where recovery quantity is commercial deserves to be allowed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Kheempal Singh
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
