Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1122 (HP)

Firoz Khan v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-09-22

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J.( Oral) - By way of instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C, 1973 prayer has been made for grant of bail in case FIR No. 376 of 2017, dated 13.08.2017 under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 ( for short "NDPS") registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 15.09.2017 ASI Bharat Singh, Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. 3. Perusal of status report submitted by learned Additional Advocate General, suggests that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against bail petitioner as well as other coaccused on the basis of prior information received from informer of the police, who informed that petitioner as well as other family members indulged in illegal selling of Poppy Husk. Accordingly, police raided his shop and recovered 500 grams Poppy Husk. As per record, bail petitioner as well as other co-accused made all out efforts to obstruct police officials from taking into possession Poppy Husk and, in that process bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused, snatched the packet containing Poppy Husk from the police. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly submitted that the bail petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of order dated 15.09.2017 and as of today, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required, but he may be directed to join investigation as and when called by the investigating agency. Otherwise, also, contraband i.e. Poppy Husk allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is of small quantity i.e. 500 grams and as such rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, shall not be attracted in the present case. 5. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 5. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. Petitioner is local resident of the place mentioned in the application and he shall remain available to face the trial and to undergo imprisonment, if any, imposed upon him. 6. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. 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; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the order dated 15.09.2017 is made absolute subject to following conditions:- (a) 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; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises 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 (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 8. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 9. 8. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 9. Any observations made here in above shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. 10. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.