High CourtsSingle Bench

Waseem vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 20 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 UK CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(xxiiia), 2(viia), 8, 21, 50 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1134 Of 2022
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

11 paragraphs · 380 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.193 of 2022, registered with Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar 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 16.04.2022, at 18.35 hrs., on the secret information, the present applicant was apprehended and 164 g.m. smack was recovered from his personal search in presence of the Circle Officer of Police.

3.

Heard Mr. Shariq Khurshid, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned AGA for the State.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; nothing was recovered from his possession; the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was not followed; the applicant has no criminal history and is in judicial custody since 17.04.2022.

5.

The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

6.

As per Table prepared in terms of Section 2(xxiii-a) and Section 2(vii-a) of the said Act, 1985, 5 g.m. of smack is small quantity and greater than 250 gram is the commercial quantity (Entry No.56). The alleged recovered contraband was non-commercial.

7.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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-Waseem 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.