HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 10th September, 2008 First Bail Application No. 672 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Laxman Singh alias Lachu …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party Case Crime No.2261 of 2007 U/s 8/18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Tanakpur District – Champawat Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. D.S. Rawal, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for respondent/State; and perused the evidence produced by the applicant as well as by the respondent by way of counter affidavit. Recovery of 5 kgs. charas was made from the possession of the accused/applicant on 30/12/2007 at about 1300 hrs. from the place of the incident by the patrolling police party. The sample of the said charas was taken into possession by the police and thereafter the accused/applicant was arrested and chargeseet was submitted against him. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant contended that according to the statement of Constable Jagdish, who had taken the charas from the Court to F.S.L. has stated that 100 grams of charas was taken as a sample whereas the F.S.L. report reveals that the net weight of the charas was approximately 90.8 grams without packing. It was further contended that the said contraband was not kept in safe custody and Constable Jagdish has kept this contraband in his possession for two days (5th and 6th January, 2008) as there was holiday in the F.S.L. The learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. I have gone through the entire evidence. The contraband was recovered on 30/12/2007 and the report was submitted on 07/03/2008. The fact that 5 kgs. charas was recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant; the fact that the statement recorded u/s 161 reveals 2 that the said weight was taken on 07/03/2008 whereas the recovery was made on 30/12/2007; and the fact that the recovered substance was a commercial quantity, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Urgency Application No. 2151 of 2008 is disposed of. However, it is made clear the learned trial court would not be prejudiced by the finding recorded by this Court during the trial. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 10.09.2008 Shiv