Uttarakhand High Court
Sompal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.2430 of 2023
Sompal ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Sompal is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 329 of 2023, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 23.10.2023, 265 gram smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is two hours delay between the search and the seizure; it is a case of non compliance of the provisions of the Act; the applicant is in custody since 23.10.2023. 2
5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of the smack. All mandatory compliance has been done.
6. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of smack from the applicant. In such cases, bail is governed by the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. According to it, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the accused shall not be released on bail.
7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
8. The FIR records that the police had received an information at 4:00 PM. The suspected persons alighted from a bus at 4:12 PM. He was intercepted at 4:20 PM. Senior Police Officers were called, who reached at the spot at 6:40 PM. Thereafter, after recovery, the applicant was arrested at 7:25 PM. It cannot be said that there was any delay in the matter.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 3
10. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 14.03.2024 Jitendra