Uttarakhand High Court: Refusal of Bail Is Restriction On Personal Liberty Of Individual

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

On 7th July 2020, Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard the case of Anshul vs. State of Uttarakhand, via video-conferencing. The Court granted bail to the applicant.

Facts of the case

On 21.01.2020, at around 9:30 P.M., the informant along with other police personnel checked the vehicles. In one of the vehicles, the police recovered illegal Ganja from the co-accused, Charan Singh. At the same time, the driver of another car escaped using darkness as an advantage. The applicant is the driver of the said car. 

The car had a plastic bag holding 18.906 Kg of illegal Ganja. On 22.01.2020, the Sub Inspector Devendra Singh Samant filed an FIR. The police filed the FIR for the offence under Section 20, Section 22 and Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant filed the bail application. This is under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Arguments of the applicant

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was falsely implicated. The police did not arrest the applicant on the spot. Moreover, the police did not make any recovery from his possession. 

The alleged recovery has no independent witness. The applicant has no criminal history. The alleged recovery of contraband was less than the commercial quantity.

Arguments of the respondent

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application. Yet, he conceded that the recovered Ganja was less than the commercial quantity. Besides, he agreed that the applicant has no criminal history.

Court’s Analysis

According to Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, any quantity greater than 20 Kg is the commercial quantity. The recovered Ganja is less than 20 kg. The Court said that the bail is the rule. The committal to jail is an exception. 

Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual. It is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Punishment is not the object of keeping the accused in detention. The main purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused.

Furthermore, there is no record showing the involvement of the applicant in any unacceptable activity. 

The Court referred to the case of ”Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. the State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC ”. In that case, observed that personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. It should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Court’s Decision

This Court heard the submissions of both the parties. It held that there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period. The Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Thus, the Court allowed the bail application.

The applicant will be released on bail on the execution of his personal bond. Further, he must furnish two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -