Manjeet Kumar Kamboj vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 7 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Gadarpur, 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 04.01.2023, 3.325 Kg. charas in a strip from were recovered from the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is the case of the applicant that it is a case of non compliance of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that as per prosecution, charas was in the strips form, but the sample was not taken from each of the strip, instead collectively 200 grams sample was taken. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa, (1993) 3SCC 145.

In the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “before examining the scope of this provision, we shall first consider whether the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had in his possession two pieces of Charas weighing 7 gms and 5 gms respectively. As already mentioned only one piece was sent for chemical analysis and PW 1, the Junior Scientific Officer who examined the same found it to contain Charas but it was less than 5 gms. From this report alone it cannot be presumed or inferred that the substance in the other piece weighing 7 gms also contained Charas. It has to be borne in mind that the Act applies to certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not to all other kinds of intoxicating substances. In any event in the absence of positive proof that both the pieces recovered from the accused contained Charas only, it is not safe to hold that 12 gms of Charas were recovered from the accused. In view of the evidence of PW 1 it must be held that the prosecution has proved positively that Charas weighing about 4.570 gms was recovered from the accused.”

Learned State counsel would admit that sample was not taken from each of the strips instead 200 grams sample was randomly taken.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that 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.