Kulwant Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.340 of 2023, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 16.07.2024, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is a case of applicant that there is a non compliance of the provisions of the Act. The recovery, per se, is false because it records that inventory report was prepared at the spot, whereas the inventory report which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit records the details of the FIR. It is argued that how could FIR detail be written in the inventory report which was allegedly prepared at the spot and much thereafter FIR was lodged.

Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions. He admits that as per prosecution case, the inventory report was prepared at the spot. He also admits that in the inventory report, there are details of FIR which was lodged much subsequent to the alleged recovery. Learned State Counsel is not in a position to tell as to how FIR detail has been included in the inventory report which was prepared much before the FIR was lodged. It makes out a case for bail.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

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.