Blog

Refusal of bail is a restraint on an individual’s personal liberty which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is upheld by Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Harish Melkhani v. State of Uttarakhand through Justice Alok Kumar Verma.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A bail application was submitted for the purpose of obtaining regular bail for an offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

According to the FIR, the Sub-Inspector was present at Ataria for routine inspections along with other police officers. The applicant had a bag and was travelling from Ataria. He was detained on suspicion, and 430 grams of charas were found in his backpack.

JUDGEMENT

In accordance with Sections 2 (xxiii-a) and 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, the Court found that 100 grams of charas constituted a small quantity and more than one kilogramme of charas constituted a commercial quantity (Entry No.23).

The Court observed that refusal of bail is a restraint on an individual’s personal liberty, which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The accused person is being held in custody throughout the investigation, not as a form of punishment. Clearly, securing the accused’s attendance is the major goal.

Accordingly, the court granted the bail request, concluding that there was no justification for keeping the applicant incarcerated indefinitely.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL

Click here to view the judgement