Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1706 (HP)

Hari Om son of Shri Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-11-21

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 106 of 2014 dated 23.4.2014 registered under Section 15-61 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 in Police Station Baddi District Solan (H.P.). 2. It is pleaded that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any offence as alleged by prosecution. It is pleaded that applicant will not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and will abide by the directions passed by the Court. It is pleaded that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and further pleaded that age of applicant is 27 years and applicant is sole earning member of the family. Prayer for acceptance of bail application is sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report, FIR No. 106 of 2014 dated 23.4.2014 has been registered against the applicant under Section 15-61 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. There is recital in police report that on dated 23.4.2014 at about 5.15 AM a vehicle having registration No. HP-12-F-5332 came from Pinjore side. There is further recital in police report that vehicle was checked and in dickey a plastic bag was found. There is recital in police report that in plastic bag 38 Kg. 500 grams of poppyhusk was recovered. There is further recital in police report that applicant could not produce any licence/permit. There is recital in police report that after registration of case photographs took and site plan was also prepared and statements of prosecution witnesses were also recorded. There is further recital in police report that report from FSL Junga also obtained and as per chemical report sample was of poppyhusk. There is also recital in police report that investigation is complete and challan has been filed on dated 24.7.2014. There is further recital in police report that applicant is a hardened criminal and there are also criminal cases against the applicant vide FIR No. 80 of 2010 dated 29.6.2010 under Sections 366, 376, 120B, 34 IPC P.S. Baddi District Solan and FIR No. 177 of 2012 dated 21.7.2012 under Section 15-61 of ND&PS Act 1985 P.S. Baddi District Solan. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 4. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- Point No. 1 Whether the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation is complete in present case and challan has already been filed in the Court on dated 24.7.2014 and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and on this ground bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702, titled Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Court is of the opinion that trial in present case will be concluded in due course of time and Court is of the opinion that in view of the fact that challan has been filed in Court and in view of the fact that investigation is complete and in view of the fact that no recovery is effected from the applicant and in view of the fact that poppyhusk recovered from the applicant did not fall within commercial quantity it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the applicant is released on bail. It is held that if applicant is released on bail then interest of State and general public will not be adversely affected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that if bail is granted to applicant then applicant will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that condition will be imposed in the bail order to the effect that applicant will not induce and threat the prosecution witnesses and another condition will also be imposed upon the applicant that applicant will attend the trial of the case regularly. Court is of the opinion that if applicant will flout the terms and conditions of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail strictly in accordance with law. 9. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-applicant that two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 80 of 2010 dated 29.6.2010 and FIR No. 177 of 2012 dated 21.7.2012 already stood registered against the applicant and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that applicant has been convicted by any criminal Court of law as of today. Court is of the opinion that simply pendency of criminal cases relating to two FIRs against the applicant is not a sufficient ground for declining the bail. As per law accused is presumed to be innocent till criminal charges are not proved against the accused in accordance with law. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2 Final Order 10. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court on following terms and conditions. (i) That the applicant will attend the proceedings of learned trial Court regularly till conclusion of trial in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That the applicant will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicant will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That applicant will give his residential address in written manner to the Investigating Officer and Court. Applicant be released only if he is not required in any other criminal case. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s), if any also disposed of.