High CourtsSingle Bench

Shavej @ Sameer vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 UK CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(xxiii-a), 2(vii-a), 8, 21, 50
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 3358 Of 2021
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

21 paragraphs · 346 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 0272 of 2021, registered with Police Station Kathgodam,

District Nainital, for the offence under Section 8/21 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act, 1985’),

2.

On 25.11.2021, the informant, Sub Inspector, Bhuwan Singh Rana along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. The applicant was

apprehended. At the spot, 9.40 gram Smack was recovered from his possession.

3.

Heard Ms. Sheetal Selwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the said Act,

1985, was not complied with; the alleged recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity; the applicant is a resident of District Udham Singh

Nagar and he is in custody since 25.11.2021.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application.

6.

As per the Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 5 gram of Smack is small quantity and greater than

250 gram is commercial quantity (Entry No.56).

7.

The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the

attendance of the accused.

8.

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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that

the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9.

The bail application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant Shavej @ Sameer 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.