Allowed

Virendra Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2023BA2/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nainital allowed the second bail application of Virendra Singh Rawat, accused of drug offences. Noting the charge-sheet was filed over a year prior and trial remained incomplete, the court held that denial of bail did not justify continued custody without a trial.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed. The applicant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Virendra Singh Rawat Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No.40 of 2022

¶3

Virendra Singh Rawat ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Karan Singh Dutal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Applicant Virendra Singh Rawat is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.338 of 2020, dated 14.12.2020, under Sections 8/20/60 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected on 28.06.2021.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

It is argued that after his arrest on 14.12.2020, the charge-sheet was filed in the matter on 10.03.2021; charges were framed on 24.02.2022 and after more than

¶12

¶13

six months first witness was examined on 02.09.2022 and the trial has yet not been concluded.

¶14

Learned State counsel admits these factual

¶15

aspects.

¶16

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.

¶17

The applicant is in custody for more than one year. The charge could be framed even after nine months. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶18

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

¶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.) 01.12.2023

¶23

Sanjay

Virendra Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Rawat 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

Prakash Mandal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bharat Bhushan Jain Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gul Mohammad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shander Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Raj Kishore Rai Vs State of Uttarakhand