The Court granted bail to the applicant, who was in judicial custody under the NDPS Act for possession of charas. The order dismissed arguments regarding the authenticity of police vehicle movement without deep examination, holding the case fit for bail.
Interim bail made absolute subject to personal bond and two reliable sureties.
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
First Bail Application No. 708 of 2022
Royer Nicole ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Raunak Pant, 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 Royer Nicole is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.22 of 2022, dated 18.02.2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”), Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar. She has sought her release on bail. The applicant was enlarged on interim bail on 30.11.2022.
2
3
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.04.2023
Sanjay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act given the controversy regarding the possession of drugs.
Whether the discrepancy between the police vehicle movement claims and the Right to Information records affects the bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Royer Nicole
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
