Ripul Chauhan vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

This matter concerns a bail application moved by Ripul Chauhan, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 477 of 2025, registered under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The contraband was allegedly recovered based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act and that his absence from the spot or non-availability of documents at the time of interception does not render the transaction illegal. The applicant also contended that the main accused has been granted bail, and therefore, he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The State counsel opposed the bail application.

Held

The Court, having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, was of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the GST registration or its relevance to the alleged offense, nor did it analyze the arguments regarding the uncorroborated disclosure statement or the parity with the co-accused in detail. The decision to grant bail was based on a general assessment of the case circumstances. The ratio decidendi appears to be that in cases where the recovery is based on a co-accused's statement and the applicant has a registered business (impliedly suggesting legitimate activity), bail may be considered without a deep dive into the merits at this stage, especially when parity with another granted bail is claimed. The operative direction was to allow the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail, considering the contraband was allegedly recovered based on an uncorroborated disclosure statement of a co-accused, and the applicant's GST registration status. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (Ripul Chauhan): Argued that the recovery is based solely on an uncorroborated and self-serving disclosure statement of a co-accused. Further submitted that the applicant is duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. Contended that the absence of the applicant at the spot or non-availability of documents at the time of interception does not render the transaction illegal in substance. Relied on the fact that the main accused has already been granted bail by this Court, entitling the applicant to bail on the ground of parity. Revenue/State: Vehemently opposed the bail application.