HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1657 of 2024
Pramod @ Sonu ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant through video
conferencing.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, AGA for the State.
First Bail Application No. 1769 of 2024
Ashish @ Montu ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these bail applications arise from one
and the same FIR, they are heard together and being
decided by this common order.
2. Applicants Pramod alias Sonu and Ashish alias
Montu are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 580 of
2024, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on
bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
2
4. According to the FIR, on 20.07.2024, from the
possession of the applicant Pramod alias Sonu 22.650 kgs.
Ganja and from the possession of the accused Ashish alias
Montu 22.850 kgs. Ganja was recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that according to the prosecution, the inventory report was
prepared at the spot and thereafter the case was lodged, but
it is argued that the inventory report bears the FIR number
and the general diary entry of the police station records that
the inventory report was deposited at the time of lodging of
the FIR. It is argued that the FIR was lodged much after the
alleged recovery and it is not possible to record the FIR
number prior to lodging of the FIR, at the time of alleged
recovery.
6. The Court wanted to know from the learned
State Counsel as to how could the inventory report bear the
FIR number, which was prepared at the spot much prior to
lodging of the FIR? Learned State Counsel would submit
that it was recorded in the inventory report later on.
7. On being asked, the learned State Counsel
admits that there is no general diary entry to the effect that
the FIR number was recorded in the inventory report
subsequent to lodging of the FIR.
3
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
9. The bail applications are allowed.
10. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
31.12.2024
Avneet/