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
13 paragraphs · 272 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.
Applicants are in judicial custody in FIR No. 294 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case, on 10.06.2024, charas in commercial quantity was recovered from both these applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the case is false; according to the FIR, the inventory report was prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery; it doubts the prosecution case.
The Court posed a question as to how the inventory report bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery?
Learned State counsel would submit that as per instructions, the FIR number in the inventory report was lodged subsequently.
The Court posed further question, as to whether there is any document?
Learned State counsel fairly concedes there is no document to this effect.
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 by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.