Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 964 (HP)

Bimla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-07-23

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) H.C. Tek Chand No.3, Police Station, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi is present along with record. Record perused and returned. Status report filed and taken on record. 2. In relation to F.I.R. No.7/2014 dated 7.1.2014, registered at Police Station, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi under the provisions of Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, petitioner, Bimla Devi was arrested on 2.2.2014. She seeks bail in relation to the said F.I.R. 3. Petitioner, Bimla Devi, aged about 39 years is a widow. Her married son, as is so stated by her, resides separately and there is none to take care of her house. According to the petitioner, she is innocent and stands falsely implicated. 4. From perusal of the record, it is evident that police arrested one Sanjay Kumar, from whose custody alleged Charas weighing 2.113 Kg. was recovered on 7.1.2014 by the police party headed by H.C. Tek Chand. Initially, Sanjay Kumar made a statement to the police that he had bought the Charas from "some unknown person at unknown place in village Aut". Also, he could not disclose the name and address of the person from whom he had been purchasing the contraband substance (Charas). This fact is evident from the Challan so presented by the police before the trial Court. 5. It is the case of police that on 10.1.2014, Sanjay Kumar made a disclosure statement, in the presence of police officials, of having purchased the contraband substance in question from the present petitioner, Bimla Devi. Noticeably, police arrested her only on 2.2.2014, much after Sanjay Kumar died in police custody. Inquiry with regard to his death is in progress. A senior level police officer i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi is inquiring the same. 6. No action was taken against the present petitioner prior to her arrest on 2.2.2014. Prima facie, it appears that only when accused Sanjay Kumar died in police custody, police took action and arrested her on 2.2.2014. Even house of the petitioner was searched by the police only on 5.2.2014 when no incriminating material either in the shape of money or contraband substance was recovered from there. Also apart from the alleged disclosure statement of the deceased-accused, there is no incriminating material clearly pointing finger of guilt or petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime. 7. Even house of the petitioner was searched by the police only on 5.2.2014 when no incriminating material either in the shape of money or contraband substance was recovered from there. Also apart from the alleged disclosure statement of the deceased-accused, there is no incriminating material clearly pointing finger of guilt or petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime. 7. What needs to be examined is as to whether petitioner has prima facie made out a case for grant of bail in the aforesaid factual situation. Admissibility and relevancy of the statement made by the co-accused and that too in the presence of police official(s) is to be considered by the trial Court during trial. Whether the accused abetted the crime or not is also a question which needs to be considered during trial. 8. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 9. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner-accused, and also in view of the law discussed, herein above, in my considered view, it is a fit case in which petitioner should and ought to be enlarged on bail. 10. As such, petitioner, Bimla Devi is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner act and conduct herself so as to disentitle her from the discretionary power. Also, she shall always make herself available during trial. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner act and conduct herself so as to disentitle her from the discretionary power. Also, she shall always make herself available during trial. The Court is further directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No.HHCVIG/ Misc. Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 11. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Application stands disposed of. Petition allowed.