IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 25th day of March 2009 IInd Bail Application No.19 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Pappu S/o Wazid Khan R/o Mohalla Zina Inayat Khan P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur (U.P.) .….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 25, 2009 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.358 of 2005 Under Section 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 10.08.2007. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 4.12.2005 at about 09:40 P:M, about 5 Kg Charas was said to be recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant. With the same averments, the F.I.R. was lodged by Sub Inspector Chanchal Sharma at Police Station Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar on 05.12.2005 at 12:05 A:M. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that the said Charas recovered from the possession of the accused was not weighed at the spot. Hence, it cannot be said definitely that the recovered Charas was 5 Kg. He further submitted that the compliance of Section 50 of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was not made. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder for the State has submitted that the recovered Charas, as mentioned in the FARD, was about 5 Kg. He further submitted that the commercial quantity of Charas is 1 Kg but the Charas which was recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant is about 5 Kg. He further submitted that as per Section 37 (1) B (II) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 the applicant is not entitled for bail. He further submitted that on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/applicant is guilty of the above-said offence and he is likely to commit any offence if he would be released on bail. In the FARD, it is specifically mentioned that about 5 Kg Charas was recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant. Hence, the submission made by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the said Charas was not 5 Kg is not sustainable at this stage. From the perusal of the recover memo, it reveals that compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 was made as per the law. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the accused/applicant is also not correct. After considering all the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The second bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.03.2009 RG