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
10 paragraphs · 246 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 376 of 2023, under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on 19.12.2023, the narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false. According to the prosecution, the inventory report was prepared at the spot, but it contains FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery. He would submit that it falsifies the prosecution case.
Learned State counsel would admit that inventory report was prepared at the spot and it records the FIR number.
The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel as to how in the inventory report allegedly prepared at the spot bears the FIR number? The answer is that there is no explanation in the instructions. It makes out a case for bail.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that 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.