Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2062 (HP)

Mayur Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-11-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral) The instant petition has been instituted by the bail applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, wherein he is extantly lodged, for his allegedly committing offences punishable, under, Section 21 of NDPS Act, registered in case FIR No. 146 of 2018 of 1.10.2018 with Police Station, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla. H.P. 2. The investigating Officer, is, present in Court, and, has disclosed, that, Heroin carrying a weight of 9 grams, standing allegedly recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession, of, the bail applicant. The afore quantity of Heroin recovered, from, the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the bail applicant, renders it to fall within the category, of less than commercial quantity thereof, and, thereupon the rigor(s) of statutory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable, whereupon, this Court proceeds to accord the indulgence of bail in favour of the bail applicant. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General, submits before this Court, that, the bail applicant is a habitual criminal, and, he immediately subsequent to his being an accused in case FIR No. 109 of 2018, is re-indulging in offences constituted in the instant FIR. He submits that hence given the repeated indulgence of the applicant in criminal activities, thereupon, the according of facility of bail in his favour, being not appropriate, as there, is every likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses, in other cases pending against him, and, also his re-indulging in the commission of offences. 4. Even though the factum of repeated, and, successive indulgence of the bail applicant, in, criminal activities and besides the factum of criminal cases pending against him, though, is a necessary factor to be borne in mind, when according or refusing the facility of bail, to him. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, that upon strict/stringent conditions, being hence imposed, by this Court, would, rather obviate the factum of the bail applicant, hence fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, that upon strict/stringent conditions, being hence imposed, by this Court, would, rather obviate the factum of the bail applicant, hence fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. Thereupon, in consonance therewith, imposition of stringent conditions, would also hence mitigate as well as allay, the, apprehension of the State, that, given his previous repeated indulgences in criminal activities, upon, his being granted bail,it would facilitate his abusing his bail, and, his re-indulging in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court proceeds to afford qua him the facility of bail, however, subject to the condition qua upon his re-indulging in criminal activities, it shall facilitate the respondent, to move this Court for cancellation of bail. 5. Moreover, when at this stage, no material, has been placed on record, by the prosecution, demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicant, there being every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon this Court is constrained to afford, the facility of bail in favour of the bail applicant. 6. Accordingly, the bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody, subject to compliance by him with the following conditions:-: 1. That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned JMIC, Rampur Bushehar. 2. That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. 3. That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. 4. That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 5. That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. 6. That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 7. 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.