Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3412 (UTT)

MUSHTAK ALI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/46/2025 · 2025-04-01

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 46 of 2025 Mushtak Ali ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand, 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 FIR/Case Crime No. 166 of 2023, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 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.313 of 2024, was disposed of, having been treated as short term bail application, on 22.08.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 10.08.2023; chargesheet was submitted on 07.02.2024; charges were framed on 26.05.2024. It is submitted that PW1 was examined on 24.08.2024. He would also submit that as per the prosecution, the inventory was prepared at the spot, but it also bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the alleged recovery. 5. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel. 2 6. It is a case pertaining to recovery of smack 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 sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.04.2025 Avneet/