IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.1203 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Kashmir Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.76 of 2009, U/s 8/18/22 NDPS Act, Thaana Lal Kuwan, Distt. Nainital Dated: March 17, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 12.6.2009, from the possession of the present applicant 5 kilograms of Doda and 750 grams of smack/heroin was said to be recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and even the co- accused have been granted bail by the courts below and the applicant deserves bail on the ground of parity. Contrary to those arguments, learned Brief Holder argued that the case of the applicant is not in parity with the co- accused who have been enlarged on bail. Co-accused Major Singh, Shishupal Singh and Harpal Singh have been enlarged on bail by the courts below on the ground that the recovery made from them was less than the commercial quantity while co-accused Jitendra Singh has been released on bail by the court below for the reason that he was a Juvenile. In the case in hand, the quantity of heroin /smack recovered from the present applicant is 750 grams while the commercial quantity of heroine/smack is 250 grams. Therefore, the recovery of heroine/smack made from the applicant is more than the commercial quantity. He further submitted that as per Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled for bail. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and other papers available on record particularly considering the fact that the recovery made from the present applicant is more than the commercial quantity, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.03.2010 Rajeev Dang