Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 439 (UTT)

Ashraf v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-26

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.39 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 13.02.2024, 400 grams smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that before search, a Gazetted Police Officer was called at the place of incident, who signed the consent memo, under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, as such, compliance of Section 42 of the Act is not required. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant, at it, would submit that the recovery memo has not been signed by the Gazetted Police Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery was made in the presence of the Gazetted Police Officer. 7. Learned State Counsel admits that the recovery memo has not been signed by the Gazetted Police Officer. It is admitted also that the compliance of Section 42 of the Act has not been made. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and 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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.