HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1797 of 2024 Tahira Khatun alias Chhoti ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sati, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 169 of 2024, under Section 8/21/27/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 18.05.2024, 259 gram smack was allegedly recovered from the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the alleged recovery was made from the very populated area. There is no independent witness. The applicant is in custody for more than seven months now. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of smack. The recovery has been made from a bag. 2 6. It is the 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. 7. The recovery was allegedly made from the bag. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of smack. In such cases, the bail is governed by the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. In such cases, bail may not be granted unless there are reasons to believe that the accused has not committed any offence or there is less chances of repeated offence. Merely because there is no independent witness, it does not make a ground for bail. 8. 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. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.01.2025 Jitendra