Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 343 (UTT)

Bhupendra Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-05-25

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Applicant Bhupendra Singh Bisht, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.01 of 2023, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Salt, District Almora has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the applicant is an innocent person; that, he has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; that, he has no criminal history; that, there is no independent eye witness of the alleged crime. He would further submit that the applicant was simply a driver of the vehicle in which the main accused Trilok Singh Bisht @ Bablu was carrying the allegedly seized contraband. He drew attention of this Court to the F.I.R. (at page 11 to the bail application) that the said main accused Trilok Singh Bisht @ Bablu told that there were two bags in which the alleged seized Ganja was contained was being taken by him from some unknown persons, and he had done this job sixth times before also and main accused to told the raiding police party that the Driver of the vehicle i.e. the present applicant/accused does not have any knowledge about this fact that these bags are containing Ganja, as this vehicle was taken by him on hire. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant/accused, thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars as the trial is likely to take long time. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the evidence against the applicant/accused is the statements given by the members of the raiding police party under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they stated that when the main accused and present applicant were asked then they were not able to tell that where from they got that contraband (Ganja). 5. To this, learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the version stated in the F.I.R. is the first statement of the accused and that has to be believed and as it is more reliable than the later statements of the members of the raiding party, who are the policemen. 6. 5. To this, learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the version stated in the F.I.R. is the first statement of the accused and that has to be believed and as it is more reliable than the later statements of the members of the raiding party, who are the policemen. 6. In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case this Court is of the view that it is a case for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs.50,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.