Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 319 (HP)

Kartik v. State Of H. P.

2019-03-27

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant petition has been instituted by the bail petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C , for, his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, wherein he is extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offence(s) punishable under Section 20, and under Section 29 of ND&PS Act , in respect whereof, FIR No. 6 of 2019 of 191.2019, is lodged, at Police Station, B.S.L. Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. An apt status report has been filed by the Investigating Officer. It is portrayed in the status report, that, the quantum of the relevant item of contraband, recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the bail applicant, weighs 59.48 grams. The weight of heroin recovered, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the bailapplicant, falls in non commercial quantity thereof, thereupon with their being no statutory bar, against indulgence, of, bail being affordable, visvis, the afore weight, of, contraband, recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession, of the bailapplicant, thereupon this Court is constrained, to allow the bail application. Moreso, when the afore findings are in tandem with, a, verdict recorded upon Cr.M.P(M) No. 137 of 2019. 3. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits before this Court with much vigor, that the bail applicant is a habitual criminal, and, there are other FIRs besides the instant one, recorded against him. He submits that hence given the repeated indulgence of the applicant in criminal activities, thereupon, the according of facility of bail in his favour, being not appropriate, as there, being likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses, in other cases pending against him, and, also his reindulging, in, commission of offences. 4. Even though the factum of repeated and successive indulgence of the bail applicant, in, criminal activities, and, besides the factum of criminal cases pending against him, though, is a necessary factor to be borne in mind, when according or refusing the facility of bail, to him. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, qua, strict/stringent conditions, being hence imposable upon him, by this Court, hence for obviating the factum of the bail applicant, rather fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, qua, strict/stringent conditions, being hence imposable upon him, by this Court, hence for obviating the factum of the bail applicant, rather fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. Thereupon, in consonance therewith, imposition of stringent conditions, would also hence mitigate as well as allay, the, apprehension of the State, that, given his previous repeated indulgences in criminal activities, upon, being granted bail, would facilitate his abusing his bail, and, his re indulging in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court is constrained to accord the facility of bail to the bailapplicant/ accused, however, subject to the following conditions, and, if any condition is infringed, it shall facilitate the respondent to move this Court for cancellation of bail. 5. Moreover, when also at this stage, no material, has been placed on record, by the prosecution, demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the petitioner/bail applicant, there being every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon this Court is constrained to afford, the facility of bail in favour of the petitioner/bail applicant. Accordingly, the petitioner/bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody, subject to compliance by him with the following conditions: i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/, with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, concerned. ii) That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. iii) That he shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. iv) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. v) That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. vi) That upon his reindulging in crime, thereupon the State is at liberty for motioning this Court, for cancellation of bail. vii). That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the bail applicant shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 4. vi) That upon his reindulging in crime, thereupon the State is at liberty for motioning this Court, for cancellation of bail. vii). That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the bail applicant shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 4. 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. Dasti copy.