Allowed

Rizwan v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 May 2024BA2/61/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the second bail application of Rizwan, who was detained under the NDPS Act. The court noted a delay in trial exceeding six months with no progress, holding that custody cannot be prolonged without conducting the trial, and ordered release on execution of a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of equal amount to the satisfaction of the Court.

Rizwan Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No.61 of 2024

¶3

Rizwan ...Applicant

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. Subhash Chand Burman, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Rizwan is in judicial custody in FIR No.361 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 06.02.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 30.04.2022, the charge sheet was submitted on 08.09.2022; charges were framed on 29.10.2022; PW1 was examined on 07.06.2023; PW2 was examined on 04.08.2023; PW3 was examined on

¶12

¶13

03.10.2023; PW4 was examined on 13.10.2023; PW5 was examined on 08.01.2024. But thereafter, till date, no witness has been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he has not sought any adjournment.

¶14

These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel.

¶15

It is a case pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity of the 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. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The bail application is allowed.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.05.2024

¶22

Ravi

Rizwan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan 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

Vikas Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jeewan Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kalvendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mulkiraj Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand