Bail is the judicial release of an accused charged with a certain offence by imposing some restrictions on him: High court of Sikkim
Bail is the conditional release of a person accused of a crime, for an amount, pledged for the appearance of the accused when the same is due in court. The person paying the money acts as the surety.. The bail is filed by the advocate on behalf of the accused is held by the High court of Sikkim through the learned bench led by Single Bench: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE.In the matter of Presently at State Jail, Rongyek Versus State of Sikkim [BAIL APPL. No. 13 of 2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above.
Earlier, this court had vided judgment dated 25.01.2021 in Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 (Ganesh Sharma Gelal vs. the State of Sikkim), rejected a similar bail application moved by the applicant. While doing so, this court had examined the provision of section 18 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 and arrived at a conclusion that it is in pari-materia to section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This court had also examined the judgments of the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal & Ors.1, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar & Anr.2, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade3 and Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira.
Mr Rahul Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant, had taken this court to the various depositions which have now been recorded by the learned trial court in the matter. It is his submission that due to the fact that various prosecution witnesses have been examined there is a change in circumstances and therefore, the applicant be granted bail.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case According to the applicant, as of now, five witnesses have been examined. On examination of the evidence of Ongchyo Bhutia (PW-3), it is quite evident that what was alleged by the prosecution has been reiterated in the deposition of Ongchyo Bhutia (PW-3) that the applicant had been constantly calling the accused no.1 informing him that he was coming to receive the consignment.
Click here to read the judgment
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra