High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarafat Husain @ Sarafat Kabadi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 August 2024 · Citation: (2024) 08 UK CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 21, 29
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1530 Of 2024
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

9 paragraphs · 251 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant Sarafat Husain @ Sarafat Kabadi is in judicial custody in Case Crime /FIR No. 99 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Banbhulpura, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, on 07.05.2024, 8.18 gms. Smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the co-accused. As per the FIR, he named one Shoaib from whom he bought the Smack. It is the prosecution case that subsequently, the co-accused Aman Siddiqui revealed that, in fact, he had bought the Smack from the applicant.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that nothing has been recovered from the applicant; the co-accused from whose possession Smack was recovered has already been granted bail; the applicant is not a previous convict.

5.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the bail rejection does not reveal any previous conviction of the applicant. But, according to her, it is the co-accused, who named the applicant as a person, from whom he had bought Smack.

6.

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.

7.

The bail application is allowed.

8.

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.