Deewan Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter Affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly.

Supplementary Affidavit is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application, IA No.2 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.02 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Lamgara, District Almora. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 07.01.2024, at about 9:50 PM, the applicant was spotted and from his possession, 1.143 Kg Charas was allegedly recovered.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated; there were a few houses near the alleged place of incident, but the police had not tried to even secure the presence of independent witnesses; according to the witnesses the recovery memo was prepared and, thereafter, arrest was effectuated; no money was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which it is argued falsifies the prosecution case because according to the police, the applicant was to travel to Haldwani; without money, how could the applicant travel; no videography and photography was done by the police.

Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of charas; there is no reason to falsely implicate the applicant; it is a case of chance recovery; the recovery memo itself records that no money was recovered from the applicant.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

It is a case of alleged recovery of commercial quantity of charas. In the cases like the instant one, the bail is governed by the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. Bail, in such matters, is not granted, unless there are reasons to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence and if released, there are less chances of repeat offence.

Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.