Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/436/2021 on 17 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
17th AUGUST, 2022
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1 of 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 of 2021
Between:
Ajay Ram ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
learned A.G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This is an application for bail in the present
appeal.
2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 14.12.2021/15.12.2021,
passed by the District and Sessions Judge/Special
Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No.
01 of 2019, "State vs. Ajay Ram", whereby, the appellant
has been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and, in
default of payment of fine, he has been directed to
undergo further additional simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
3. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the
learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant has been implicated in this matter;
nothing was recovered from the possession of the
appellant; he was on bail during the trial, and, he is in
custody since 14.12.2021.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
State opposed the bail application and submitted that 1 Kg
120 Gram Charas, commercial quantity, was recovered
from the bag of the appellant in the presence of the Circle
Officer of Police. He further submitted that the prosecution
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
6. In Criminal Appeal No. 585-586 of 2020,
"Sheru vs. Narcotics Control Bureau", the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed on 11.09.2020 that the rigors of
the provision of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would have to be met
before the sentence of a convict is suspended and bail
granted and mere passage of time cannot be a reason for
the same.
7. In the present matter, it cannot be said that the
appellant has satisfied the rigors of the provision of
Section 37 of the said Act, 1985. The prosecution's
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. At
this stage, detailed appreciation of evidence shall affect
the merits of the case.
8. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of
the case, there is no good ground to release the appellant,
involved in the crime, on bail. The bail application is
rejected accordingly.
9. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application are limited to the decision of
this bail application as to whether the bail application
should be allowed or not. The said observations shall not
effect the merit of this appeal.
10. List this Appeal on 13.09.2022 for final hearing.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 17.08.2022
SB
