Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 546 (HP)

Virender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-02

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. 278 of 2018, dated 07.12.2018, under Section 18 of the ND&PS Act, Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, 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 07.12.2018, at about 06:00 p.m., a police team was on patrol duty at place Planighat. When PSI was talking with Gram Panchayat Pradhan and Ward Member, a person appeared from the bushes and on seeing police he threw something. On noticing his abnormal behavior, the person was nabbed and he disclosed his name as Virender Kumar (petitioner herein). Police checked the substance thrown by the petitioner and same was found to be opium. The contraband, on weighment, was found to be 151 grams. Police completed all the sample and sealing formalities. Police recorded the statements of witnesses and rukka was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. The petitioner was arrested and sample of recovered contraband was sent for scientific analysis and as per the report, the sample was of opium. As per the police, the petitioner is also involved in other matters and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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. 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. It has been further argued that that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. 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, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It has been argued 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. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, quantity of the recovered stuff and the material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, and also the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, 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. 278 of 2018, dated 07.12.2018, under Section 18 of the ND&PS Act, Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, 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. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.