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
15 paragraphs · 257 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 347 of 2023, under Section 8/22 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, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant on 20.11.2023
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false; the inventory report was prepared at the time of alleged recovery, but it
bears the FIR number which doubts its credibility because FIR was lodged much after the alleged recovery.
Learned State counsel admits that the inventory report bears the FIR number. It is also undisputed that FIR was lodged much after the alleged
recovery.
6 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.