Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 750 (HP)

Sourav Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-07-03

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. 103 of 2017, dated 10.05.2017, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Bialspur, 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 10.05.2017, around 4:50 p.m. when police party was on patrol duty at place Lakhanpur, they spotted two persons coming on a bike, having registration No. HP23C-7888. They were not wearing halmets and on seeing the police party they stopped the bike well before the police party. Both these persons, after throwing the bike on the spot, started running. The person, who was driving the bike, while running, threw some packet from his pant’s pocket. Police, with the help of other people, apprehended both the persons. Police checked the packet thrown by the petitioner and found some brown powder therein, which was like smack. Police took into possession the contraband and all other codal formalities were completed. Motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP23C-7888, was also taken into possession. Spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The petitioner and his accomplice were arrested. A sample from the recovered contraband was sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga and report therefrom reveals that the sample contained Diacetyl morphine (Heroin). As per the prosecution, the petitioner is habitual offender and seven more cases are pending against him. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed, as he is habitual offender and there is possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice. 4. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that as the quantity recovered from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity, he may be released on bail. 4. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that as the quantity recovered from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity, he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that in the past also the petitioner had been involved in the sale of narcotics and there are number of cases registered against the petitioner, including one more case registered under the NDPS Act. Lastly, it has been 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 record in detail. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the quantity of the recovered contraband, pendency of other cases against the petitioner, including a case pending against the accused under the NDPS Act, and also the chances of the petitioner’s tampering with the prosecution evidence and fleeing from justice, in case he is released, present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.