Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. September

Arjun Chand Alias Kalu Chand vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 30 September 2024• Citation: BA1/448/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                           First Bail Application No.448 of 2024                    
                  Arjun Chand  alias Kalu Chand            ….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  State of Uttarakhand                   ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                            Mr.  Pawan  Sanwal,  Advocate, holding brief of         
                            Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, Advocate for the applicant.        
                            Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.                    
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 43 of       
                  2021,  under  Section 8/20  of the  Narcotic Drugs  and           
                  Psychotropic  Substances  Act, 1985   (“the Act”), Police         
                  Station Ranipokhri, District Dehradun. He has sought his          
                  release on bail.                                                  
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                                                    charas                          
                  3.        According  to the  FIR,        in  commercial           
                  quantity was  allegedly recovered from the possession of          
                  the applicant on 27.02.2021.                                      
                  4.        It is argued that in the instant case charge-           
                  sheet was  submitted on  25.04.2022; charge was  framed           
                  on   20.05.2022;   first  witness  was    examined   on           

                                              2                                     
                  02.06.2022;  second witness was examined  on 06.01.2023           
                  and  yet the trial has not been concluded.                        
                  5.        These  facts are not disputed  by the learned           
                  State counsel.                                                    
                  6.        It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity         
                     charas                                                         
                  of        and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes           
                  specific provisions. Bail in  such  cases  may   not be           
                  granted,  unless the  Court  is satisfied that there are          
                  reasonable  grounds for believing that the accused is not         
                  guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit        
                  any  offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give     
                  unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in         
                  custody without conducting a trial.                               
                  7.        The  applicant is in custody for more  than a           
                  year. For more  than six months  in between  not even a           
                  single witness was examined.                                      
                  8.        Having  considered the facts and circumstances          
                  of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for  
                  bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.           
                  9.        The bail application is allowed.                        
                  10.       Let the applicant be  released on bail, on his          
                  executing  a personal bond  and  furnishing two  reliable         

                                              3                                     
                  sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the     
                  court concerned.                                                  
                                                   (Ravindra Maithani, J)           
                                                          30.09.2024                
                  Jitendra