Allowed

Abid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Civil Secretariat, U.K. Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC13 Dec 2023BA2/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Section 37 of the NDPS Act involving recovery of narcotics in commercial quantity, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed bail noting that the accused had been in custody over a year without any witness being examined, finding denial of bail unjustified in delay cases.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Abid Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

2nd Bail Application No. 103 of 2023

Abid ...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

...Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Suhail Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, D.A.G. for the State.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Applicant Abid is in judicial custody in FIR No. 235 of 2021, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

This is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on 10.12.2021 on merits.

¶13

According to the FIR, on 21.04.2021, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that post arrest of the applicant charge sheet was filed on

¶15

¶16

11.07.2021, but the charges were framed only on 20.05.2023 and no witness has been examined since then. He has filed the entire copy of the order sheet.

¶17

These factual aspects are not denied by the learned State counsel.

¶18

It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substance in commercial quantity 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.

¶19

The applicant is in custody for more than a year. For more than six months now, not even a single witness has been examined.

¶20

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.12.2023

¶25

Jitendra

Abid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Civil Secretariat, U.K. Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Civil Secretariat, U.K. Dehradun

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

Rohit Pande Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kamrul Hasan Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat Dehradun

Paras Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gulzar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun

Gurcharan Singh Alias Banti Vs State of Uttarakhand

Narendra Deep Chibbar Vs State of Uttarakhand