High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 09 UK CK 0115

Dilshad vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 September 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Second Bail Application No. 210 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 326 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application, IA No.1 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly.

2.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.0700 of 2023, under Section 8/22C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being, BA1 No.338 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2024.

5.

According to the FIR, on 28.11.2023, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant. In fact, the FIR records that the narcotic substance was recovered from the applicant and two other co-accused, which was in large quantity and was kept in cartons.

6.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the narcotic substance, which was allegedly recovered from the applicant, was not weighed by the Arresting Officer; there is no Forensic Science Laboratory Report; the extension of time for submission of chargesheet has wrongly been granted because the applicant was not heard on it. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.

7.

Learned State Counsel would submit that in different cartons, narcotic substance was recovered. The Arresting Officer did weigh capsules from one carton and based on it, it was found that 4,000 Tramadole capsules weighing 2160 grams was recovered from the possession of the applicant. She would also submit that before extension of time for submitting the chargesheet, the applicant was informed and he had not objected to it.

8.

As per the prosecution, commercial quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

9.

Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

10.

The bail application is rejected.