Firoz vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Firoz is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 570 of 2023, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 17.09.2022, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is the case that the applicant was apprehended from a mohalla lane.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the entire story of the police case is false; it is a planted case; the applicant was dragged from his house by the police and falsely implicated. He has referred to some CCTV footages.

On the last date, when these arguments were advanced, the Court requested learned State counsel, when she took time. Today, learned State counsel gives a statement that the CCTV footage is correct. She would submit that she herself has seen the CCTV footages. The applicant is seen to have been taken by the police personnel from the door of his house. Learned State counsel has tendered for the perusal of the Court the instructions which have been received. Let it be taken on record.

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.

As per the FIR, the applicant was spotted in a lane, in a mohalla, when he tried to run away, but he was apprehended. Thereafter, narcotic substance was recovered from him. But, it is being admitted by the prosecution now, that the applicant was taken by the police from the door of his house.

Does it mean that the way the FIR has been recorded is not true? What was the occasion for the police to pull the applicant from the door of his house? These and many more questions would find answer during trial.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that 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.