Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1067 (HP)

Nasir v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-09-13

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - By way of this petition filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No. 37/2017, dated 22.01.2017, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the case of the State, the petitioner was apprehended on 22.01.2017 at around 2:55 p.m. by a police party headed by ASI Rajinder Singh, on their way to Majra, from whom 16 bottles of Corex, each containing 100 ml. were recovered. Seized bottles of Corex when sent to SFSL Junga, were found to be containing Codeine Phosphate, a narcotic drug. In each bottle, 1.938 mg. per ml. Codeine Phosphate was found. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and he is in custody since then. 3. Status report filed by the State demonstrates that charge sheet already stands filed against the accused and now the case is listed before the learned trial Court for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 13th to 16th November, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that the quantity of Codeine Phosphate even otherwise is within the limit of "small quantity". He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 432 of 2017, dated 25th April, 2017, in which case, this Court had granted bail to the accused therein from whom 58 bottles of 100 ml. each of Codeine Phosphate were recovered. 5. I have perused the report of the Chemical Examiner, which demonstrates that quantity of Codeine Phosphate found in each bottle was 1.938 mg. per ml. It could not be disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the Hon''ble Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case where the accused was apprehended with 58 bottles of Codeine Phosphate. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by another Hon''ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 592 of 2017, dated 23.05.2017 and Cr. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by another Hon''ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 592 of 2017, dated 23.05.2017 and Cr. MP(M) No. 1091 of 2017, dated 25.08.2017, wherein also, accused who were apprehended with 12 bottles and 175 bottles of Corex, were released on bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. The apprehension of the learned Deputy Advocate General that in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, then he may hamper the course of investigation is ill-founded, because challan already stands filed in the Court and now the case is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise a local resident of Ward No. 10, Misserwala, District Sirmaur, H.P. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty, is a matter of trial and in case he is found guilty of the offences alleged against him, then he will have to face the consequences. Taking into consideration the fact that 16 bottles of Corex have been allegedly recovered from his possession and in similar cases, this Court has released persons so apprehended on bail, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (ii) He shall not hamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iii) He shall not 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 the Police Officer; and (iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. 7. 7. It is clarified that the observations made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of adjudicating upon the present bail petition and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of these observations while deciding the case on merits, in the course of trial.