Allowed

Ajay Pal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Dec 2023BA1/398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand granted bail to the applicant arrested under the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantities of narcotics. The Court noted the trial had been pending for over a year with significant delays, holding that such prolonged custody was unjustified despite the strict bail provisions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two reliable sureties of equal amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Ajay Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 398 of 2022

¶2

Ajay Pal ….....Applicant

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶5

Present:Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶7

Applicant Ajay Pal in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.442 of 2021, dated 02.11.2021, under Sections 8/21/22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

According to the FIR, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant on 02.11.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for a long and the trial has yet not concluded. He would submit that for a

¶11

¶12

long the trial is not preceded. According to him, chargesheet was filed in the matter on 26.04.2022; charges were framed on 29.07.2022 and almost after a year on 20.07.2023, PW1 was examined and his examination has yet not been concluded because on that date the defence took adjournment and thereafter, he did not appear.

¶13

Learned State counsel admits these factual

¶14

aspects.

¶15

It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.

¶16

The applicant is in custody for more than a year. The trial has yet not been concluded. In between for more than six months the trial did not proceed. It commands this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶17

¶18

Having considered, this Court is of the view

¶19

that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.12.2023

¶23

Sanjay

Ajay Pal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prahlad Mandal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Parveen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandresh Mamgai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gurmeet Vs State of Uttarakhand through S.S.P. Haridwar