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
11 paragraphs · 266 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 57 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.06.2024.
According to the FIR, ganja in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which he was carrying in a car.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that entire prosecution case is false; according to the FIR, at the spot, inventory report was prepared, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery.
Learned State counsel would submit that the FIR number was recorded in the inventory report after lodging of the FIR.
The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel as to how FIR number could subsequently be entered into the inventory report? Who entered it? Where is the record in this connection? Nothing has been revealed by the learned State counsel. It makes out a case for bail
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.