Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 574 (HP)

Narender Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-05-23

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 24 of 2016, dated 12.05.2016, under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also not in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 11.05.2016, around 07:15 p.m., In-charge Police Post Kuddu intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. UK 07TA-4011, which was being driven by one Shiv Kumar. On checking, there was a carton box, which contained prohibited medicine Corex. The said carton box contained four plastic packets and each contained 25 vials and one more plastic packet contained 10 vials of corex. In total, 110 vials of Corex were recovered. The said Shiv Kumar could not produce any valid document for possessing the contraband. During the course of investigation said Shiv Kumar divulged that he brought the said contraband from Uttrakhand, Parola, with his friends (accomplices) Narinder @ Titu (petitioner herein) and Sikander @ Sikki in vehicle bearing registration No. HP10B-2929. He has further divulged that before Kuddu barrier they shifted the contraband in vehicle bearing registration No. UK 07TA-4011. Police registered an FIR and started the investigation. As per the prosecution, accused Narinder @ Titu and Sikander @ Sikki after committing the crime fled away. On 03.06.2016, the petitioner surrendered before the police and he was arrested. Another accused, Sikander @ Sikki, participated in the investigation and he was arrested on 27.05.2016. The police, after completing the investigation, presented the challan in the Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and he may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and he may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in transporting a huge quantity of contraband. He has further argued that the petitioner has committed a very serious crime and he may repeat the offence in future also. The trial against the petitioner is pending before the learned Trial Court and some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. He has further argued that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour, thus the petition may be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the quantity of the recovered contraband, the fact that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence as the Trial is pending before the learned Trial Court and the same is at the stage of evidence, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. The petition, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly disposed of. 7. The learned Trial Court is expected to decide the case expeditiously.