Allowed

Palvinder Singh Alias Happy v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC16 Aug 2024BA1/962/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by applicants in judicial custody for recovery of commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act. Court noted prolonged custody of over a year and prosecution's failure to examine any witness for more than six months after framing of charge, and enlarged them on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Palvinder Singh Alias Happy Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.962 of 2023

¶2

Palvinder Singh @ Happy and another ….....Applicants

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicants are in judicial custody in FIR No. 101 of 2023, under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. They have sought their release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

According to the FIR, Ganja in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicants on 27.02.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after their arrest, the applicants are in jail for a long; charge sheet was submitted in the case on 31.07.2023; cognizance was taken on 11.08.2023; charge

¶12

¶13

was framed on 27.09.2023; but since then, no witness has been examined.

¶14

Learned State counsel admits that witnesses

¶15

never appeared in this case.

¶16

It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Ganja 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 applicants are in custody for more than a year. For more than six months in between not even a single witness was examined.

¶18

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

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

¶21

Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶22

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 16.08.2024

¶23

Avneet/

Palvinder Singh Alias Happy v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palvinder Singh Alias Happy 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

Ashok Sharma Vs Smt. Deepmala Sharma

Yashpal Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pooran Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandrashekhar Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sarafat Husain Alias Sarafat Kabadi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Virendra Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand