Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2037 (HP)

Santosh Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-30

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. 172 of 2019, dated 20.08.2019, under Section 21 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 permanent resident of District Shimla 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 19.08.2019 a police team was on patrol duty and at about 12:20 a.m. at Circular Road Bifurcation police spotted a person, who on seeing the police, took a slew and started walking hurriedly. The said person was carrying a bag on his shoulder. On suspicion, the police apprehended him and he disclosed his name as Santosh (petitioner herein). Police associated independent witnesses and in their presence the bag of the petitioner was checked. During search of the bag, a transparent polythene packet was recovered, which contained some yellowish powder. The yellowish powder was checked through drug detection kit and found to be heroin. On weighment, the contraband was found to be 18.82 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. A case was registered against the petitioner and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected relevant recoveries and prepared the spot map. The petitioner was arrested and medically examined. During the course of investigation, the petitioner divulged that he purchased the contraband from some unknown person at Delhi. As per the police, two more cases have been registered against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC. The contraband, on being chemically tested, found to be diacetylmorphine (heroin). The investigation in the case is complete and on 15.10.2019 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed for 07.01.2010 for examination of prosecution witnesses. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. The investigation in the case is complete and on 15.10.2019 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed for 07.01.2010 for examination of prosecution witnesses. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed 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 permanent resident of District Shimla 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. The petitioner is a drug addict and not a drug peddler and he had kept the contraband for his own consumption, 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 has committed 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 his custody is not required by the police and also in the wake of the fact that the investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and also the fact that the petitioner is a drug addict and not a drug peddler, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 20 years of age, the fact that the petitioner had kept the contraband for his self consumption, the petitioner is a drug addict and not a drug peddler, the quantity of the recovered contraband, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Shimla, so he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, 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. 172 of 2019, dated 20.08.2019, under Section 21 of the ND&PS 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. 20,000/- (rupees twenty 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. Copy dasti.