High CourtsSingle Bench

Fazil Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 UK CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(vii-a), 2(xxiii-a), 8, 21, 60
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2808 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

22 paragraphs · 369 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 335 of 2021, registered with Police Station Kichha, District

Udham Singh Nagar, for the offence under Section 8/21/60 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act, 1985’),

2.

On 05.10.2021, the informant, Sub Inspector, Gaurav Joshi along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. The applicant was

apprehended. At the spot, 21.10 gram Smack was recovered from his possession.

3.

Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; the mandatory provisions of the

Act, 1985 were not complied with; there was no independent witness in the alleged recovery; the alleged recovered contraband is less than

commercial quantity; the applicant is a resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; he is in custody since 06.10.2021 and charge sheet has already been

filed, therefore there is no chance for tampering with evidence.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application.

6.

As per the Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gram of Smack is small quantity and greater than

250 gram is commercial quantity (Entry No.56).

7.

The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of

the accused.

8.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep

the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that

the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9.

The bail application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant Fazil Khan be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to

the satisfaction of the court concerned.