BA1/2726/2022 of SURAJ RAJPOOT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALFirst Bail Application No. 2726 of 2022

Suraj Rajpoot

Versus

….....Applicant

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Veer Kunwar Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Suraj Rajpoot is in judicial custody in FIR No. 681 of 2022 dated 15.11.2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the FIR, on 15.11.2022, huge quantity of narcotic substances were recovered from the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the case is false; the applicant runs shop; some incident happened in front of the shop of the truck; the police wanted the applicant to be witness of that incident; the applicant declined to be witness of the incident and he

returned to his shop; thereafter, he was taken by the police from his shop and the money was also taken from his shop, and he was implicated in false case. It is submitted that there is variation with regard to number of different denominations of currency notes, as recorded in the FIR and as stated by the witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that, in fact, the quantity of narcotic substances is less than commercial because Tramadol cannot be added in any other medicine and chemical composition of Tamadol alone will be considered while considering the quantity of the substance.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the number of Tramadol capsules was 972 and the total weight of each capsule was 385 mg. Therefore, the total quantity of the recovered quantity is 250 gms., which is more than commercial quantity.

7. The court below has taken into consideration the judgment in the case of Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another, (2020) 20 SCC 272. In fact, the notification No. S.O. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 has been given in the Court, wherein it is categorically stated that the quantity of the substance should not be the mere

compound, but the weight of entire composition has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the quantity of the narcotic substance recovered is more than commercial.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is rejected.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.03.2023