Trilok Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Trilok Singh, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.01 of 2023 under Sections 8/20/60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Salt, District Almora, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the applicant/accused is an innocent person; that, he has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; that, he is languishing in jail since 11.01.2023; that, the co-accused person has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2023; that, the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant/accused behind bars as there are bleak chances of conviction of the applicant/accused in the present case.

Counsel for the applicant/accused would further submit that this is the case of parity; that, the quantity of the alleged recovered contraband from the possession of the applicant/accused does not fall within the definition of Ganja under Section 2 sub section (iii) (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; that, at the time of the recovery, the alleged seized material was wet and that was much below than the commercial quantity.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the charge sheet has been filed with F.S.L. report which after chemical examination has stated that the whole quantity recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused is Ganja falls within the commercial quantity; that, whether it contained water or not, it is a matter of trial which can be ascertained through evidence; that, the co-accused Bhupendra Singh Bisht, who has been granted bail by this Court was the driver and as per the case of the prosecution itself, the present accused/applicant himself stated to the police in his statement that he (co-accused) had driven the vehicle and he did not know anything that what the present applicant/accused was carrying with him, which was transported in the vehicle of the co-accused, therefore, the present case is not the case of parity.

In view of the above, the 1st bail application is hereby rejected.