LAXMAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2024-12-17. LAXMAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL nd 2 Bail Application No. 171 of 2024 Laxman Singh …..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. …. Respondent Present:- Mr. K. S. Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. S. Rawat, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Laxman Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 12/2022, under Sections 8, 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been rejected by this Court on 26. 12. 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 22. 12. 2022, Charas in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false; there are grave contradictions in the statements of the witnesses; PW 1 Sanjeev Kumar and PW 4 Bhupal Singh Rautela both are said to be the witnesses of recovery, but, their statements are contradictory as to which scale was used for weighing the recovered article. He would submit that as per PW 1 Sanjeev Kumar, it was an electronic weighing scale, whereas according to PW 4 Bhupal Singh Rautela, the manual weighing scale was taken from a shopkeeper. It is also argued that as per the prosecution, inventory report was prepared at the spot, but it bears the FIR number, which was lodged much after the recovery. These factual aspects have been indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the documents. 5. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to how the inventory report prepared at the spot bears the FIR number, which was lodged much thereafter?
The answer is “there is no specific instruction”. 6. Having considered the points raised in the instant bail application, this Court is of the view that these are new grounds which entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the second bail application deserves to be allowed. 7. The second bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17. 12. 2024 Avneet/
Source: High Court of Uttarakhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.