BA1/322/2021 of SUNIL JOSHI Vs STATE OF UTTARKAHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 322 of 2021

Sunil Joshi

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

Present:- Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A., assisted by Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sunil Joshi is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.152 of 2020, under Section 08/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“the Act”), 1985, Police Station- Champawat, District Champawat. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 07.12.2020, when police was on patrolling duty, they spotted car. The car driver suddenly tried to turn and run away, but in this attempt, the car was stopped. Three persons ran out from the car. One of them was the

applicant. From his possession, it is the case that 1 Kg 200 Gram charas was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is non-compliance of Section 42 & 50 of the Act because, as per prosecution, the applicant had disclosed that he had charas, but police did not inform the Senior Officers and also did not call Magistrate/Gazetted Officer from nearby place. Instead, Senior Police Officer was called from distance of 70 Km. It is also argued that the applicant is young boy of 25 years of age; he has no criminal history; since arrest, in the trial no witness has yet been examined.

5. It is true that once, it comes to the notice of the police officer, effecting arrest, that the offence under the Act appears to have been committed, he should follow all the mandatory provisions of the Act.

6. In the instant case, police, definitely, suddenly intercepted the applicant, but the FIR itself records that the applicant and other co-accused disclosed that they had charas. The charas was not recovered from the personal search of the applicant. According to the

prosecution case, the applicant had bag and when it was searched, charas was found.

7. It is not case in which compliance of Section 50 of the Act is required to be made. Admittedly, charasrecovered from the applicant is in commercial quantity.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The instant bail application deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

Ravi Bisht

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.07.2022