Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12614 (UTT)

VINIT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/290/2024 · 2025-02-12

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 290 of 2024 Vinit ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Present:- Mr. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht and Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody FIR/Case Crime No. 0361 of 2023, under Section 8/22C of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.75 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.06.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 17.05.2023; chargesheet was submitted on 23.08.2023; charges were framed on 06.09.2023. It is submitted that PW1 was examined on 01.12.2023; PW2 was examined on 20.03.2024; the PW3 2 was examined on 07.082024. The applicant has never sought any adjournment in the case. 5. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel. 6. It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity and in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial. 7. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail. 8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable 3 sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.02.2025 Ravi Bisht