Allowed¶23

Vakil v. State of Uttarakhand

Bail – NDPS Act, 1985 – Sections 8/20/29

Uttarakhand HC12 Mar 2025BA2/326/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital; Second Bail Application No.326 of 2024, decided 12.03.2025 by Ravindra Maithani, J.; NDPS Act Sections 8/20/29 and Section 37; charas in commercial quantity; prolonged custody over one year; delayed trial, no witness examined for over six months; bail granted on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant 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. ¶23

Vakil Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No.326 of 2024

¶3

Vakil ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

The applicant is in judicial custody in

¶10

FIR/Case Crime No.542 of 2023, dated 24.06.2023, under Sections 8/20/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been dismissed in non-prosecution on 26.11.2024.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

According to the FIR, Charas in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 24.06.2023.

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in this case the applicant was arrested on 25.06.2023; charge-sheet was filed on 22.03.2024; cognizance was taken 22.03.2024; charges were framed on 30.05.2024. Thereafter, no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded.

¶15

Learned State counsel admits these factual

¶16

aspects.

¶17

It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Charas 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.

¶18

The applicant is in custody for more than one year. In between for more than 06 months, no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded. It commands this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶19

¶20

Having considered, this Court is of the view

¶21

that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶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.) 12.03.2025

¶25

Sanjay

Vakil v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Singh Thapa Vs Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Haseeb Vs State of Uttarakhand

Diksha Krishna Upreti Vs State of Uttarakhand

Girish Kumar Goswami Vs State of Uttarakhand

Savadhan Singh and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand