High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohd. Shahrukh @ Bidi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 UK CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 22, 37
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Second Bail Application No. 316 Of 2023
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

12 paragraphs · 371 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Delay in filing counter affidavit is taken on record. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of, accordingly.

2.

Applicant Mohd. Shahrukh @ Bidi is in judicial custody FIR/Case Crime No. 169 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Vanboolpura, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1925 of 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2022.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 30.05.2022; chargesheet was submitted on 09.09.2022, but charges could be framed on 03.11.2022. It is submitted that so far, only two witness has been examined. Examination of PW1 was commenced on 25.02.2023 and it was concluded on 31.03.2023; PW2 was examined on 14.09.2023. Thereafter, no witness has been examined

6.

These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel.

7.

It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity and in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.

8.

The applicant is in custody for more than one year. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail.

9.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10.

The bail application is allowed.

11.

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.