Ayush Rawat Ayush Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

I t is argued on behalf of t he learned counsel t he applicant t hat no scient ific evidence est ablishes t he seizure subst ances t hat can be t erm ed as narcot ic drugs or psychot ropic subst ance. The applicant has no prior crim inal hist ory and has been in cust ody since 27.04.2024, and he is a B.B.A. st udent in ‘Dharm anand Uniyal Governm ent Degree College, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal’, and his prolonged incarcerat ion is j eopardizing his academ ic career. The bail applicat ion of t he applicant was rej ect ed by t he learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act , Dehradun vide order dat ed 29.06.2024, which is now been challenged.

6. Considering t he delay in t he FI R, absence of t he independent w it nesses, and non- com pliance of t he m andat ory provisions of t he NDPS Act , learned counsel for t he applicant prays t hat t he applicant m ay be released on bail. 3

7. The bail applicat ion was opposed on behalf of t he learned counsel for t he St at e Sri Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, who st at es t hat 1270 gram s of t he charas was recovered from t he accused/ applicant , and t hat com es under com m ercial quant it y, and aft er get t ing t he cont raband so recovered t he appellant / accused t he Forensic Science Laborat ory, t he cont raband so recovered was est ablished as charas on t he basis of t he said report . While learned St at e Counsel adm it s t hat som e delay in lodging of t he FI R, it assert s t hat t he delay has been adequat ely explained. I t furt her disput es specific claim of t he applicant in t he bail applicat ion t hat w hereby t he applicant has said t hat no phot ography or t he video- graphy was conduct ed. I t is argued t hat phot ographs of t he recovery alone cannot be t reat ed as t he legal proof under t he est ablished precedent s, t he prosecut ion m aint ains t hat t he accused/ applicant is direct ly involved in t he serious offence, and if he is grant ed bail, t he applicant m ay m isuse t he libert y and looking t o t he gravit y of t he offence, t he bail applicat ion of t he applicant is st rongly opposed by t he learned St at e Counsel.

8. Aft er hearing bot h t he part ies, and on perusal of t he records, and w it hout going int o t he det ails as it w ill effect t he m erit of t he case, I am of t he opinion t hat applicant has ground enough t o be released on bail, as he is a B.B.A. st udent and if he st ays j ail for a t im e incarcerat ion, his academ ics and furt her career m ay get effect ed. More 4 or less, t he m andat ory provisions as point ed out in t he bail applicat ion, at t his j unct ure are not m et out , t hough t hat m ay be ascert ained during t he t rial t hat t here is a delay in lodging t he FI R, which has been adm it t ed by ot her part y and lack of t he public w it nesses, and no videography or phot ography of t he seizure and search as m andat ed by t he Act or so, also m akes a ground at t his j unct ure for t he bail t o be allow ed.

9. Under t hese circum st ances, t his Court is inclined t o release t he applicant on bail. The applicant is direct ed t o be released on bail, subj ect t o t he furnishing of his personal bonds and t wo suret ies of t he lik e am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Magist rat e concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/