High Court Upholds Existing Bail Principles, Granting Relief When No Independent Evidence Supports the Accusation
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | BA1/1502/2025 of JUBER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010128542025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – NDPS Act (Sections 8 & 29) |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail is permissible at the investigation stage under the NDPS Act where the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of a co-accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the primary object of detention during investigation under the NDPS Act is to secure the attendance of the accused and not to punish. Since the only evidence against the applicant was the statement of the co-accused and no other material had been found, the applicant was entitled to bail at the investigation stage. The absence of independent evidence, combined with the applicant’s permanent residence and low flight risk, justified granting bail. The court directed release upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Police recovered 8.158 kg of ganja from co-accused Imran, who stated it was procured from his brother-in-law Juber, leading to the applicant’s arrest under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7508 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Bail under the NDPS Act can be granted at the investigation stage when the only evidence is a co-accused’s statement.
- Reinforces that detention during investigation is not punishment but a means to ensure the accused’s attendance.
- Confirms that absence of independent material evidence and a fixed residence mitigate flight risk.
- Demonstrates that bail may be granted even in serious-offence statutes if prima facie material is lacking.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that detention under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act serves to secure attendance, not to punish.
- It noted that, apart from the co-accused’s statement, no other evidence had been found against the applicant.
- On that basis, and considering the applicant’s permanent residency and low risk of absconding, the court concluded that bail was warranted at the investigation stage.
- The court ordered release on execution of a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by co-accused Imran.
- No independent evidence points to the applicant’s involvement.
- As a permanent resident of Shamli (UP), the applicant poses no flight risk.
- He has been in custody since 02.06.2025.
Respondent
- Opposition based solely on the statement of co-accused Imran.
- No further material evidence discovered against the applicant to date.
Factual Background
Juber was arrested under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act after 8.158 kg of ganja was recovered from co-accused Imran on 27.06.2025. In his custodial statement, Imran claimed the ganja was procured from Juber. The applicant remained in judicial custody from 02.06.2025. This first bail application was heard and allowed on 25.08.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 8 & 29 NDPS Act authorize detention of an accused during investigation.
- The court interpreted these provisions as aiming to secure the attendance of the accused, not as punitive measures.
- Bail at the investigation stage is permissible if the material against the accused is prima facie inadequate.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed
Citations
- High Court of Uttarakhand: 2025 UHC 7508
- CNR: UKHC010128542025