AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 236 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Since all these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
Applicants- Ahsan, Kurban and Sakib are in judicial custody in FIR No.92 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on 22.10.2024, from the possession of applicant-Ahsan, 239 grams charas, from the possession of the applicant-Kurban, 255 grams charas and from the possession of the applicant Sakib, 251 grams charas, was allegedly recovered.
It is the case of the applicants that nothing was recovered from them; there is no independent witness; the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; they are not previous convict.
Learned State Counsel would submit that the bail rejection order does not reveal any previous conviction of the applicants.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
The bail applications are allowed.
Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.