Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1330 (HP)

Amit Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-06

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. 36 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, 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 report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 12.02.2019, a police party had laid a nakka at place Galu Road Ravinda Lithyani, Badsar. At about 12.10 a.m., an Alto Car, having registration No. HP01-H-0880, was stopped for checking. The persons sitting inside the car, on seeking police, looked mystified. They disclosed their names as Amit Kumar (petitioner herein) and Sunil Kumar. During the search of the vehicle, police recovered a polythene packet, which contained heroin (chitta). On weighment, the contraband was found to be 40 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and a rukka was sent to police station for registration of FIR. Police registered a case under the relevant Sections of ND&PS Act. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused persons were arrested and during the course of investigation, it was unearthed that many cases have been registered against the petitioner. The recovered contraband was sent for forensic analysis and it was found to be the sample of Diactyle Morphine (Heroin). As per the police, on 10.04.2019 challan stands presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 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 report, carefully. 5. 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 report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the recovered quantity of the contraband, i.e., 40 grams, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, co-accused, i.e., Sunil Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the Court, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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. 36 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, 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. (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. 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. 36 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, 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 report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 12.02.2019, a police party had laid a nakka at place Galu Road Ravinda Lithyani, Badsar. At about 12.10 a.m., an Alto Car, having registration No. HP01-H-0880, was stopped for checking. The persons sitting inside the car, on seeking police, looked mystified. They disclosed their names as Amit Kumar (petitioner herein) and Sunil Kumar. During the search of the vehicle, police recovered a polythene packet, which contained heroin (chitta). On weighment, the contraband was found to be 40 grams. The persons sitting inside the car, on seeking police, looked mystified. They disclosed their names as Amit Kumar (petitioner herein) and Sunil Kumar. During the search of the vehicle, police recovered a polythene packet, which contained heroin (chitta). On weighment, the contraband was found to be 40 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and a rukka was sent to police station for registration of FIR. Police registered a case under the relevant Sections of ND&PS Act. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused persons were arrested and during the course of investigation, it was unearthed that many cases have been registered against the petitioner. The recovered contraband was sent for forensic analysis and it was found to be the sample of Diactyle Morphine (Heroin). As per the police, on 10.04.2019 challan stands presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 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 report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the recovered quantity of the contraband, i.e., 40 grams, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, co-accused, i.e., Sunil Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court, the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the Court, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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. 36 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, 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.