Bail Granted when no reason to restrain the accused in custody: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A single-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter of Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2528 of 2020), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a bail application filed for grant of regular bail, on alleged of committing offences under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In the present ca the informant and a sub-inspector along with a constable was present for routine checking at Aare-Mundalsera Tiraha (trijunction). They got information that a person is going to Haryana in a vehicle, bearing registration no. H.R. 95-4170, and he can be apprehended, if the raid is conducted. The police saw that the said vehicle was coming from Kapkot Road. During the search, Charas was recovered from the bag of the present applicant. Hence the applicant was arrested.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicant was innocent and had no criminal history, rather he was been implicated in the matter. He also submitted that nothing was recovered as there was no public witness of the alleged recovery. Further, the counsel submitted that since the charge sheet had been filed, so on the release of the petitioner, there was no chance of tampering with the evidence.
The counsel for the state opposed the bail application stating that charas was recovered, although less than the commercial quantity. The court observed – “there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.” Therefore the bail application was allowed.