Julfikaar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4470 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

         Third Bail Application No.30 of 2021

Julfikaar                                        ........Applicant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                          ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. with Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for
the State.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Julfikaar is in judicial custody in FIR No.44 of 2021, under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"), Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. This is third bail application. First bail application was withdrawn by the applicant on 28.05.2021 and second bail application was withdrawn on 17.08.2021.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution, on 15.02.2021, 12.500 Kg Poppy Straw was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegedly recovered quantity is not commercial quantity; applicant has been in custody for almost 9 months now. The first bail application, the

factum of prior conviction of the applicant could not be disclosed, due to the mistake of the Pairokaar. The applicant was earlier convicted under Section 8(c), 15 and 18 of the Act on the basis of his confession. It is submitted that it is a case for bail now.

5. Undoubtedly, the allegedly recovered quantity of Poppy Straw is not commercial. The commercial quantity is 50 Kg and above and the small quantity as per the provisions of the Act is 1 Kg. It is also true that the applicant has been in custody for more than 08 months now. Trial is underway. In normal circumstances, the consideration for bail would have been little different, but it is a different case because of the following two factors:-

(i) The applicant is a previous convict for the offences under the Act and;

(ii) This factum of previous conviction was concealed by the applicant, when he moved the first bail application.

6. In the order dated 28.05.2021, by which, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, the Court has reproduced its order dated 12.05.2021. It is as hereunder:-

"At the time of hearing, it was revealed that, in fact, the applicant has already been convicted in one offence under the Act on 10.03.2015, which was based on FIR No. 165 of 2012 of Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and in his bail application this fact has, in fact, been concealed by the applicant. What he states in para 10 is that he is having one case registered against him. The applicant did not

disclose that he has been already convicted under the Act earlier also.

Let the applicant give complete information of the earlier case in which he was convicted. He shall submit the FIR and the judgment of the earlier case in which he was convicted and the status of the appeal, if any, which he has filed."

7. The factum of previous conviction of the applicant, in fact, was revealed during the course of arguments and it is under such circumstances, that the bail application was withdrawn by the applicant.

8. Having considered the entirety of the facts, this Court is of the view that these two factors namely, (i) the previous conviction of the applicant in the offences under the Act and (ii) its concealment at the time of first bail application make this Court to opine that the applicant does not deserve bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed.

9. The bail application is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.11.2021 Sanjay