Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1995 (HP)

Pardeep Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-21

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2019
JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. - For possessing 15.03 grams of heroin, the petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR Number 193 of 2019, dated Sep. 10, 2019, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred as the "NDPS Act"), in the file of Police Station Sadar, Distt. Solan, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail. 2. Asi Bhagat Ram, Investigating Officer, Police Station Sadar, Distt. Solan, H.P., is present along with records. Status report stands filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. Police file perused to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and the same stands returned to the police official. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. FACTS 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows: That on Sep. 10, 2019, police party headed by HC Kuldeep Kumar was on patrolling duty to detect crime and intoxicating substances towards Shamti, Oachghat, Nauni. At 9.30 p.m., HC Kuldeep Kumar noticed one person walking alone. The said person was again and again looking backwards and was walking at a fast pace. The Investigating Officer found his conduct to be suspicious. After that the Investigating Officer stopped his vehicle and called the said person near the vehicle. On this he started running away. The police party on suspicious nabbed him. The said person was carrying a bag in his hand. At that time one person who came to that area was stopped and associated as an independent witness. On inquiry the person carrying the bag revealed his name as Pradeep Kumar the petitioner herein. On checking the carry bag the police detected a polythene pouch which contained brown coloured substance. The police party checked the substance with the Drug Detection Kit which tested positive for heroin. After this the police party weighed the recovered substance on electronic weighing machine and it measured 15.03 grams. Thereafter the police party repacked the substance in the same manner and sealed it and carried other procedural formalities under the NDPS Act and the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered. REASONING 5. After this the police party weighed the recovered substance on electronic weighing machine and it measured 15.03 grams. Thereafter the police party repacked the substance in the same manner and sealed it and carried other procedural formalities under the NDPS Act and the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered. REASONING 5. Keeping in view the quantity of contraband, I am of the considered view that the judicial custody of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever and I am inclined to grant him bail on the following grounds: (a) As per the FIR, the substance involved in is Heroin, mentioned at Sr. No. 56 of the Notification, issued under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of NDPS Act, specifying small and commercial quantities of drugs and psychotropic substances. (b) The quantity of drug involved is 15.03 grams (heroin), which is less than Commercial Quantity but greater than Small Quantity. As such the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act shall not apply in the present case. Resultantly, the present case has to be treated like any other case of grant of bail in a penal offence. (c) The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.9.2019 (1.00 a.m.). (d) The petitioner is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of parties, therefore, his presence can always be secured. (e) In the status report, there is no mention of previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. (f) The investigation in the case is complete and challan already stands filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. (g) I am satisfied that no purpose will be served if the bail petitioner is continued in judicial custody. (h) I am of the considered view that, prima facie, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail and his incarceration is not going to serve any purpose. 6. In the result the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge or learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. 7. The Court executing the personal and surety bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, his family members, and of sureties, through AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, etc. The Court executing the personal and surety bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, his family members, and of sureties, through AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, etc. The petitioner shall mention phone numbers and other details, on the reverse page of the bonds. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the attesting officer shall explain the conditions of this bail to the petitioner. 9. This Court is granting the bail subject to the conditions mentioned herein. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: a) The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant and witnesses to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics. b) The petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. c) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. d) The petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. e) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial. f) In case, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused of the commission of any offence, prescribing the sentence of imprisonment for more than 3 years, and in case the bail petitioner is arraigned as an accused in any case under the provisions of the NDPS Act, irrespective of the quantity, be it small quantity, then within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioner shall intimate the SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR and it shall be open for the State to apply to this Court, for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper. g) The petitioner shall either sell or deposit all the fire arms alongwith ammunition and arms licences, if taken, before the concerned authorities within 30 days from today. 10. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the petitioner. 11. 10. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the petitioner. 11. Respondent-State shall inform the SHO of the concerned Police Station about the passing of this order. 12. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti.