High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 11 UK CK 0117

Vishwajeet Majumdar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 24 November 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1815 Of 2023

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

14 paragraphs · 353 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Instant bail application was decided on 06.11.2023.

2.

Now a Correction Application (MCRC) No. 1 of 2023 has been filed on the ground that there have been typographical errors and factual errors in the order. The correction application is allowed. The bail order dated 06.11.2023 is recalled.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

Applicant Vishwajeet Majumdar, is in judicial custody in FIR No. 46 of 2022, under Section 8/21/22/60 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

5.

According to the FIR, on 25.01.2022 from the possession of the applicant, 10.40 gram smack and MD Drug was recovered from the applicant. According to the FIR, the recovery was also made from the co-accused. It was a personal search.

6.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that co-accused has already been granted bail from whom allegedly less than commercial quantity was recovered. It is a case of noncompliance of Section 50 of the Act because a communication of the right under Section 50 of the Act was joint. It was not individual.

7.

Learned State counsel admits it.

8.

In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, (2014) 5 SCC 345, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that joint communication defeats the purpose of Section 50 of the Act.

9.

In the instant case, admittedly, the communication of the right under Section 50 of the Act has been joint. It is not clear and unambiguous, therefore, it makes out a case for bail.

10.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

11.

The bail applications is allowed.

12.

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.

13.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment o usual charges.