Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1242 (HP)

Pritam Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-29

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
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. 129 of 2017, dated 13.09.2017, under Sections 20 and 29 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, 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 the place 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 12.09.2017, at about 09:30 p.m., a police team had laid a nakka at place TCP Bajaura. The police stopped a Volvo bus, having registration No. HR38-W-0032, for checking. During the checking, person sitting on seat No. 33 was seemed to be baffled and on asking he could not give satisfactory replies. His bag was checking and it was found stuffed with some black substance, so the bag was checked in presence of witnesses and the black substance was found to be charas (cannabis). That person disclosed his name Sunil Babu Shetty resident of Balegum, Karnataka. The recovered charas was weighed and found to be 3 kg and 72 grams. Thereafter, the police registered a case and completed all the codal formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. Police also prepared the spot map. During the course of investigation and interrogation, the accused divulged that he purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner and for that he paid Rs. 40,000/- to him on the spot and he also transferred Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in the accounts, details whereof were given to him by the petitioner. Police procured the records qua the bank transactions and it was found that on 11.09.2017 Rs. 25,000/- were deposited in the account of the petitioner. On forensic analysis, the recovered stuff was found to be cannabis and sample of charas. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in the accounts, details whereof were given to him by the petitioner. Police procured the records qua the bank transactions and it was found that on 11.09.2017 Rs. 25,000/- were deposited in the account of the petitioner. On forensic analysis, the recovered stuff was found to be cannabis and sample of charas. On 04.01.2018 the petitioner was arrested and during the course of interrogation he divulged that some charas he collected himself and some was lying with him and on 11.09.2017 he sold the same to accused Sunil Babu Shetty. The petitioner also disclosed that when he delivered the charas to accused Sunil Babu Shetty, he paid Rs. 40,000/- to him and also deposited Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in two accounts. As per the police, challan against accused Sunil Babu Shetty and the petitioner was presented in the learned Trial Court on 28.12.2018. Transaction of Rs. 25,000/- was found to be made in the account of the petitioner and another of Rs. 15,000/- was made in the account, which was found to be of one Vikas and the said amount was withdrawn. Police endeavored extensively to search said Vikas in the area of District Jhajjar, Haryana, but he could not be traced. Now, the case is listed for PWs 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court on 11.09.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and the quantity of contraband involved in huge and commercial quantity, so in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has alleged that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner by someone from Balegum, Karnataka, but by simply depositing amount in the account of the petitioner by some one, the petitioner cannot be said to be involved in the present case. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the main accused, i.e. Sunil Babu Shetty. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the main accused, i.e. Sunil Babu Shetty. He has further argued that no case exists against the petitioner and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars simply for the reason that he received money in his account by some unknown person. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent. He has argued that even otherwise also, the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Lastly, he has argued that one Vikas, in whose account Rs. 15,000/- was allegedly deposited by someone from Balegum, Karnataka, is not made an accused in the present case. So, in view of the above, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has constructed a cafe at Tosh and he has leased it out to Rakesh Kumar and Vikas used to work in the said cafe. He has further argued that Vikas after withdrawing the money has given it to the petitioner, so Vikas was not made an accused in the present case. He has argued that the recovered quantity of contraband is commercial quantity, the petitioner was actively involved in selling the contraband to co-accused Sunil Babu Shetty. The petitioner received cash from accused Sunil Babu Shetty and transaction was also made in his account. He has further argued that now the case listed before the learned Trial Court for recording of testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner and Vikas are similarly situated, but for some unknown reasons Vikas has not been indicted. He has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for considerable time and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner and Vikas are similarly situated, but for some unknown reasons Vikas has not been indicted. He has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for considerable time and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. 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 quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e., 3 kgs and 72 grams, the fact that the petitioner received cash from accused Sunil Babu Shetty and there is record that he has also received money in his account for selling the charas, the fact that the case is listed before the learned Trial Court for PWs and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and without discussing the all the facets of the case at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not 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 dismissed. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 9. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudged on its own. 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. 129 of 2017, dated 13.09.2017, under Sections 20 and 29 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, 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 the place 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. 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. 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 12.09.2017, at about 09:30 p.m., a police team had laid a nakka at place TCP Bajaura. The police stopped a Volvo bus, having registration No. HR38-W-0032, for checking. During the checking, person sitting on seat No. 33 was seemed to be baffled and on asking he could not give satisfactory replies. His bag was checking and it was found stuffed with some black substance, so the bag was checked in presence of witnesses and the black substance was found to be charas (cannabis). That person disclosed his name Sunil Babu Shetty resident of Balegum, Karnataka. The recovered charas was weighed and found to be 3 kg and 72 grams. Thereafter, the police registered a case and completed all the codal formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. Police also prepared the spot map. During the course of investigation and interrogation, the accused divulged that he purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner and for that he paid Rs. 40,000/- to him on the spot and he also transferred Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in the accounts, details whereof were given to him by the petitioner. Police procured the records qua the bank transactions and it was found that on 11.09.2017 Rs. 25,000/- were deposited in the account of the petitioner. On forensic analysis, the recovered stuff was found to be cannabis and sample of charas. On 04.01.2018 the petitioner was arrested and during the course of interrogation he divulged that some charas he collected himself and some was lying with him and on 11.09.2017 he sold the same to accused Sunil Babu Shetty. The petitioner also disclosed that when he delivered the charas to accused Sunil Babu Shetty, he paid Rs. 40,000/- to him and also deposited Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in two accounts. As per the police, challan against accused Sunil Babu Shetty and the petitioner was presented in the learned Trial Court on 28.12.2018. Transaction of Rs. 25,000/- was found to be made in the account of the petitioner and another of Rs. 40,000/- to him and also deposited Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in two accounts. As per the police, challan against accused Sunil Babu Shetty and the petitioner was presented in the learned Trial Court on 28.12.2018. Transaction of Rs. 25,000/- was found to be made in the account of the petitioner and another of Rs. 15,000/- was made in the account, which was found to be of one Vikas and the said amount was withdrawn. Police endeavored extensively to search said Vikas in the area of District Jhajjar, Haryana, but he could not be traced. Now, the case is listed for PWs 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court on 11.09.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and the quantity of contraband involved in huge and commercial quantity, so in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has alleged that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner by someone from Balegum, Karnataka, but by simply depositing amount in the account of the petitioner by some one, the petitioner cannot be said to be involved in the present case. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the main accused, i.e. Sunil Babu Shetty. He has further argued that no case exists against the petitioner and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars simply for the reason that he received money in his account by some unknown person. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent. He has argued that even otherwise also, the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Lastly, he has argued that one Vikas, in whose account Rs. 15,000/- was allegedly deposited by someone from Balegum, Karnataka, is not made an accused in the present case. Lastly, he has argued that one Vikas, in whose account Rs. 15,000/- was allegedly deposited by someone from Balegum, Karnataka, is not made an accused in the present case. So, in view of the above, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has constructed a cafe at Tosh and he has leased it out to Rakesh Kumar and Vikas used to work in the said cafe. He has further argued that Vikas after withdrawing the money has given it to the petitioner, so Vikas was not made an accused in the present case. He has argued that the recovered quantity of contraband is commercial quantity, the petitioner was actively involved in selling the contraband to co-accused Sunil Babu Shetty. The petitioner received cash from accused Sunil Babu Shetty and transaction was also made in his account. He has further argued that now the case listed before the learned Trial Court for recording of testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner and Vikas are similarly situated, but for some unknown reasons Vikas has not been indicted. He has further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for considerable time and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. 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. 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 quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e., 3 kgs and 72 grams, the fact that the petitioner received cash from accused Sunil Babu Shetty and there is record that he has also received money in his account for selling the charas, the fact that the case is listed before the learned Trial Court for PWs and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and without discussing the all the facets of the case at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not 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 dismissed. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 9. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudged on its own.