Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1527 (HP)

Vikram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-16

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. 166 of 2019, dated 15.08.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan, 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 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 15.08.2019 a police team was on patrol duty towards Saproon, Vegetable Market, Chambaghat etc. and when at about 04:00 p.m. they were present near the Gate of Vegetable Market, police got a secret tip off that one Chetan Nainta (co-accused), who is present in his rented accommodation at Chamunda Colony, Near Kather, alongwith one Vikram Kumar (petitioner herein), is dealing in sale and purchase of chitta (heroin). Police formed a raiding party and also associated one independent witness, Shri Kanwar Raj. On being knocked, a boy opened the door and he disclosed his name as Chetan Nainta (co-accused). The petitioner was also inside the room and he disclosed his name as Vikram Kumar. Police party offered their search and the petitioner himself searched the officials of the raiding party. Thereafter, the police conducted the search of the accommodation and recovered an electronic weighing scale and chitta (heroin). On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 7.36 grams. Thereafter, the police conducted all the codal formalities. Police clicked the photographs and also videographed the proceedings. Rukka was sent to the police station, whereupon FIR was registered. A spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The petitioner and co-accused Chetan Nainta were arrested. During the course of interrogation and investigation co-accused Chetan Nainta divulged that on 12/13.08.2019 when he went to Delhi for procuring heroin one Rahul Chauhan (co- accused) was with him. He has further divulged that Rahul Chauhan purchased heroin from one Nigerian at Delhi and when they returned, they divided the contraband. The petitioner and co-accused Chetan Nainta were arrested. During the course of interrogation and investigation co-accused Chetan Nainta divulged that on 12/13.08.2019 when he went to Delhi for procuring heroin one Rahul Chauhan (co- accused) was with him. He has further divulged that Rahul Chauhan purchased heroin from one Nigerian at Delhi and when they returned, they divided the contraband. Thereafter, the police procured the call details, which revealed that Chetan Nainta accompanied co-accused Rahul Chauhan. On 15.08.2019 the petitioner was arrested and on 16.08.2019 co-accused Chetan Nainta and Rahul Chauhan were also arrested and during the course of investigation he revealed that he alongwith the petitioner purchased the heroin from one Nigerian at Delhi. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may 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 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 petitioner is 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. Both the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. Keeping in view age of the petitioner, who is only 24 years of age and all the facts and circumstances, which have emerged in the police investigation, the bail application be allowed. 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, as he is resident of Bihar. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. 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, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that both the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the manner in which the petitioner was found with the co-accused Chetan Nainta, the facts that accused Chetan Nainta and Rahul Chauhan went to Delhi for procuring heroin and the petitioner had no active role in procuring the alleged contraband, the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to flee from justice, also considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. 7.36 grams, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, 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. 166 of 2019, dated 15.08.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan, 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. (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.