Pradeep Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.314 of 2020, registered with Police Station Nanakmatta,

District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 8/21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

An FIR was lodged by Dharmendra Arya, Sub Inspector, at 21:05 hrs on 19.11.2020 to the effect that at about 19:30 hrs on 19.11.2020, he was

checking the vehicles along with other police personnels. At that time the applicant was coming on motorcycle. On seeing the police party, he tried to

return back. On suspicion, he was apprehended. He was searched by the informant and during the search, 4.88 gms Smack, 280 Alprazolam

intoxicated tablets, 120 Pyeevon Spas-Termadol Hydrochloride intoxicated capsules and 170 Spas Trancan plus Termadol Hydrochloride intoxicated

capsules were recovered from the possession of the applicant.

Heard Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, the learned AGA for the State through video

conferencing.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is an innocent person; the alleged

recovery is false; nothing has been recovered from his possession; the mandatory provision of Sections 50 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not complied; the alleged recovered articles were non-commercial; no FSL report is filed as yet; the applicant

has no criminal history; he is a permanent residence of District Udham Singh Nagar; he is in judicial custody since 20.11.2020 and a charge-sheet has

already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he conceded that the recovered articles are non-commercial and

the applicant has no criminal history.

Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.

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 merits of the case, this Court is of the view

that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant 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 with the following conditions :-

i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for

cancellation of bail.