Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 586 (UTT)

Tara Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-10-13

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2023
ORDER : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The present applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.0114 of 2023, dated 20.02.2023, under Sections 8/22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By the present bail application, the applicant has sought his release on bail. 2. As per the prosecution, the First Information Report was lodged on 20.02.2023 alleging therein that on 20.02.2023, when the police party was on patrolling and checking of transportation of illegal contraband, inside the region of Halka No.2 of Nindukheda, they saw some persons standing outside a grocery shop situated at Chattarpur Road, Bindukheda. On seeing police party, four persons ran away and on suspicion, the owner of the said shop was apprehended. He disclosed his name as Jagjeet Singh, who further disclosed that he use to sell the psychotropic substances to those boys, who ran away. On his disclosure, the complainant started some legal formalities in order to proceed further with search and seizure of the accused. On conducting search of the said person, 10 tablets of ACPRAZOCAM TABCETS IP OSMA were recovered from his right pocket. On further interrogation, a plastic bag was also recovered and on opening it, 240 tablets were recovered from total 8 plastic bottles of DIXCLOMINE, HYDROCLCORIDE, TRAMADOL HYDROCLCORIDE CAPSULES. 3. After completing formalities, the said person was arrested, and, thereafter, he was asked about the source of drugs, on which he disclosed that he used to bring it from the owner of Tara Medical Store, Barhaini. 4. After disclosure of his name by the said person, the present applicant was implicated. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that merely on the basis on the disclosure of his name by the co-accused, from whom the contraband was recovered, the applicant has been implicated. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that this applicant is running a medical shop, namely, Tara Medical Store, and for running this shop, he has two valid licenses bearing Nos. 110682 and 110683, and both are valid till 16.12.2024. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is authorized dealer to sell the said drugs, which fall under Scheduled H and H1 of the Act, under which, all the seized/prohibited capsules fall. The copy of the licenses to run the medical store is also brought on record. 8. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is authorized dealer to sell the said drugs, which fall under Scheduled H and H1 of the Act, under which, all the seized/prohibited capsules fall. The copy of the licenses to run the medical store is also brought on record. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also submits that there is no recovery from the applicant; he has a valid license to run the medical shop; he has been implicated merely on the basis of disclosure of his name by the co-accused, from whose possession the recovery was made. Since there is no recovery from the applicant, the applicant has been implicated under Section 29 read with Section 8/22 of the Act. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not come into play, since there is no recovery from the present applicant. 10. In response to it, the State Counsel submits that since there is the involvement of the present applicant, and from the co-accused, the quantity, which was recovered, is commercial quantity, Section 37 of the Act will come into play. 11. So far as the licenses, as issued to the applicant to run the medical store, are concerned, the State Counsel fairly submits on instruction that these licenses are valid. 12. Learned State Counsel further submits that the chargesheet has already been filed in this case. However, whether this applicant has a valid license to run the medical store, that issue was investigated in FIR No. 106 of 2023, wherein, this applicant was also implicated, and, in that case, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 13. It is not disputed by the State Counsel that the present applicant, who is running the medical shore, was implicated merely on the basis of the disclosure of his name by the co-accused, but, he could not show any link evidence, which connects this applicant with the co-accused. 14. Having considered the facts that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of the disclosure of his name by the co-accused; there is no recovery; he is an accused of only Section 29 of the Act, and he has no criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merit of this case, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail. 15. 15. The Bail Application is allowed 16. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 17. It is made clear that in addition to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court, the applicant shall be required to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing. In case the applicant is found to be involved in future in any other similar case, the respondent - State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted to him by this Court.