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
9 paragraphs · 230 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicants Mukesh Goswami, Shivom, Ranjeet and Anil Kumar are in judicial custody in FIR No. 70 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat. They have sought their release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on 27.06.2024, smack in non commercial quantity was recovered from each of the applicants.
It is a case of the applicants that the right under Section 50 of the Act was jointly communicated to them; it is a case of non compliance of the provisions of the Act; the alleged recovery is false; the allegedly recovered quantity is less than commercial; the applicants are not previous convicts.
Learned State counsel would admit that non commercial quantity of smack was recovered from the applicants. She would submit that the bail rejection order does not reveal any previous conviction of the applicants.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.