Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1528 (UTT)

IRSHAD ALIAS PINTU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/136/2025 · 2025-02-19

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No.136 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present applicant, namely, Irshad alias Pintu is seeking bail in relation to FIR No.608 of 2024, wherein the applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that 7.50 gram smack is shown to be recovered from his possession, which is much below the commercial quantity, and, furthermore, at the time of recovery, there was no public interest witness and one other co-accused, namely, Arman Khan, from whose possession 7.3 gram smack was shown to be recovered, has been bailed out by the trial Court on 16.01.2025. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no compliance of Section 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act. 6. In paraNo.9, it is also contended that some other criminal cases are also pending against the applicant in which the applicant is on bail and has not previously convicted from any court and he is in judicial custody since 19.12.2024. 7. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA also submits that the applicant has criminal history of two cases of the same nature and apart from this, he is also an accused of Section 13 of the Gambling Act. 8. So far as the grant of bail of the other co-accused-Armaan Khan, is concerned, Mr. V.S. Pal submits that the said co-accused was granted bail on the ground that he has no previous criminal history. 9. After taking into consideration that the applicant has criminal history and three cases are of the same nature, it appears that the applicant is habitual, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find any merit in the present bail application. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.02.2025 R.Bisht