Amit Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 393 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Amit Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 March, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            First Bail Application No.2694 of 2023

Amit Sharma                                 ........Applicant

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand                      ........Respondent


Present:-
            Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath and Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj,
            Advocates for the applicant.
            Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024 is

allowed. Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned.

Counter affidavit is taken on record.

2. Applicant Amit Sharma is in judicial custody in

Case Crime No. 150 of 2023, under Section 8/20/27A and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Prem Nagar, District

Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

4. According to the FIR, on 13.08.2023, 3.030 Kg.

charas was allegedly recovered from the applicant, which

was carrying in a bag.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that it is a case of non compliance of Section 50 of the Act,

but applicant's personal search was also carried out.

6. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act would

come into play in the cases of personal search. When

recovery is made other than personal search, non

compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act will

have no effect. In the instant case, charas was recovered

from a bag and not from personal search. Therefore, in view

of the judgment, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder

Singh and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 473, recovery from a bag

will have no effect, even if compliance of the provisions of

Section 50 of the Act is not made.

7. As per prosecution, charas in commercial quantity

was recovered from the applicant.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.03.2024 Jitendra