Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1227 (HP)

Pradeep Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-27

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. 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. 219 of 2010, dated 24.12.2010, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of Chopal, District Shimla, and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 24.12.2010 a police team was on patrol duty near Vegetable Market and at about 08:18 p.m. a person came, who was carrying a bag on his back. On seeing the police party, the said person tried to flee, so the police personnel apprehended him. He disclosed his name as Sandeep Kumar and his bag was checked, which contained 17 bottles of Rexcof, each 100 ml, 224 Capsules of Spaspasmocip Plus, 56 capsules of Spesmo Proxybon and180 Tablets of Nitrazepam. Said Sandeep Kumar did not produce any valid permit or licence for carrying such drugs. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared a rukka and it was sent to police station for registration of FIR. Police also prepared a spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused was produced in the learned Trial Court on 25.12.2010 and till 29.12.2010 he was sent in police remand. On 01.01.2010 the learned Trial Court enlarged him on bail. During the course of investigation, the real name of the accused was unearthed to be Pradeep (petitioner herein). On 24.11.2014 challan was presented in the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Trial Court and on 28.06.2017 he was declared proclaimed offender. On 20.04.2019 the petitioner was arrested and produced in the learned Trial Court and since then the petitioner is in custody. The next date of hearing in the present case before the learned Trial Court is 28.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Trial Court and on 28.06.2017 he was declared proclaimed offender. On 20.04.2019 the petitioner was arrested and produced in the learned Trial Court and since then the petitioner is in custody. The next date of hearing in the present case before the learned Trial Court is 28.08.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner is very clever person, and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may again flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that earlier the petitioner was on bail, but now he is behind the bars, as he has jumped over the bail granted to him by the learned Trial Court. He has further argued that the petitioner is Conductor in a truck and he could not appear before the learned Trial Court, as he generally remains out of station. It has been argued that for jumping over the bail, the petitioner is behind the bars for sufficiently long time and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of Chopal, District Shimla, and ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted and will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner, after committing serious crime, did not willingly appear before the learned Trial Court and virtually thwarted the process of justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is very clever person and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may again flee from justice and tamper with the evidence, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, for jumping over the bail, has spent considerable time behind the bars and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period for the only reason that he jumped over the bail. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, for jumping over the bail, has spent considerable time behind the bars and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period for the only reason that he jumped over the bail. He has argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and ready and wiling to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted in his favour, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than four months, he is permanent resident of Chopal, District Shimla and is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, his presence can be secured by putting stringent conditions, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, also considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for sufficiently long time for jumping over the bail and considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 219 of 2010, dated 24.12.2010, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.