Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13132 (UTT)

VAKIL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/326/2024 · 2025-03-12

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.326 of 2024 Vakil ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.542 of 2023, dated 24.06.2023, under Sections 8/20/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been dismissed in non-prosecution on 26.11.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, Charas in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 24.06.2023. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in this case the applicant was arrested on 25.06.2023; charge-sheet was filed on 22.03.2024; cognizance was taken 22.03.2024; charges were framed on 30.05.2024. Thereafter, no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded. 5. Learned State counsel admits these factual aspects. 6. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Charas 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 one year. In between for more than 06 months, no witness has been examined and the trial has yet not been concluded. It commands this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and 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 sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.03.2025 Sanjay