Raees Alias Golu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application, IA No.1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

Applicant Raees @ Golu is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.203 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/27A/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station- Kotwali Jwalapur, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 29.02.2024, 258 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant, on prior information, was arrested from outside his house and two persons were brought from outside.

Learned State Counsel would submit that commercial quantity of smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to where is the compliance of Section 50 of the Act? Is not the communication joint, as per the recovery memo? He admits that the communication is joint, but the consent letters are separate.

In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the consequence of joint communication. In Para 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “a joint communication of the right available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the very purport of Section 50.”

In the instant case, the communication is joint.

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.