Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13284 (UTT)

HUKAM SINGH DANU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA3/82/2024 · 2025-02-12

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No. 82 of 2024 Hukam Singh Danu ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Hukam Singh Danu is in judicial custody in FIR No. 1 of 2023 dated 05.01.2023, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Tharali, District Chamoli. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court on 09.04.2024, whereas the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.09.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, Charas in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant on 04.01.2023. 2 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false because according to the FIR, the inventory report was prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery. 6. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to how the inventory report could bear the FIR number, as the inventory report was prepared at the spot and the FIR was lodged much after the alleged recovery? 7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the FIR was lodged much after the alleged recovery was made. 8. If at the time of recovery, the inventory report was prepared, the FIR number could not have been recorded in it. But, the inventory report records the FIR number. As to who recorded it? When was it recorded? There is no explanation coming forward. It doubts the prosecution case. 9. 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. 10. The bail application is allowed. 3 11. 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) 12.02.2025 Avneet/