Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1569 (HP)

Sandeep v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-23

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 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS 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 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 05.06.2019 a police team was on routine patrol duty at place Saproon Chowk and the police got a secret tip off that near Hotel Paragon in Batra Niwas one Subodh @ Sonu is dealing in sale and purchase of heroin and in case his accommodation is raided heroin can be recovered. The police prepared a raiding party and associated independent witnesses and at about 09:15 p.m. door of the accommodation of said Subodh was knocked. The door was opened by a boy, who disclosed his name Subodh @ Sonu. There were two more boys in the said accommodation, who disclosed their names as Akhil Bhardwaj and Sandeep Kumar (petitioner herein). The raiding party, as per the rules, gave their search to them and thereafter the accommodation was searched. Police recovered an electronic weighing machine, a spoon, two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 10/-, which were rolled, four syringes, four lighters and a white polythene packet, which contained some white substance. On checking the said polythene packets, they contained heroin, which on weighment was found to be 14.82 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and a case under the apt provisions of ND&PS Act, was registered. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. All the accused persons, including the petitioner, were arrested and medically examined. During the course of investigation, accused Akhil Bhardwaj and petitioner disclosed that they gave Rs. 4000/- each to accused Subodh @ Sonu for heroin and accused Subodh purchased heroin from Delhi from some unknown Nigerian person. All the accused persons, including the petitioner, were arrested and medically examined. During the course of investigation, accused Akhil Bhardwaj and petitioner disclosed that they gave Rs. 4000/- each to accused Subodh @ Sonu for heroin and accused Subodh purchased heroin from Delhi from some unknown Nigerian person. Accused Subodh also disclosed that he went to Delhi and purchased heroin from some unknown person, who met him near Metro Pillar No. 688 and he also got identified the said spot. Upon being chemically tested, the recovered contraband was found to be heroin. As per the police, on 03.08.2019 challan was presented in the Court. On 26.08.2019 co-accused Akhil Bhardwaj was enlarged on bail and co-accused Subodh @ Sonu is lodged in jail. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner 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 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. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that the petitioner was not seller of contraband and he like co-accused Akhil Bhardwaj, who has been already enlarged on bail, was only consumer of the contraband and not the seller of the contraband, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may 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 challan stands presented in the Court and eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 25 years old, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, who was dealing in sale and purchase of the contraband, he was a consumer of the contraband, co-accused Akhil Bhardwaj has already been enlarged on bail, 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, the fact that the investigation in the case 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. 129 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station 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. 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.