Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 762 (HP)

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-24

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. 1. The present petition is under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 139/2018, dated 10-12-2018, registered at Police Station-Barotiwala, District-Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21, 22-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the status report. 3. This matter was heard on 18-6-2019 and on 17-06-2019 ASI Jagat Ram, I/O. Police Station-Barotiwala, District-Solan, HP, was present alongwith record and he had placed on record the status report. 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows: (a) That on 10-12-2018, S.I. Bahadur Singh incharge P.S. Barotiwala alongwith other police officials namely HC Balvinder Singh No. 151, C. Raman Kumar No. 589 and driver Home Guard Balwant in Government vehicle bearing registration No. HP12C-5442, were on patrolling duty, at place Himuda Colony, Bhatolikala near Timex Company. (b) At that place, S.I. Pradeep Singh, Additional SHO, Police Station-Baddi alongwith SI Sanjay Kumar, HC Manoher No. 31 and C. Sunil No. 587 came in private vehicle. (c) At that spot S.I. Mukhvar Singh received a secret information that Pankaj Kumar (bail petitioner) is in possession of Psychotropic substances and Codine. (d) Thereafter, investigating Officer stated that they complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. (e) Independent witness Kundan Lal was associated and the police party reached at the address given in secret information. (f) Outside the quarter, one young man aged 25 years, met them. On inquiry he told his name as Pankaj Kumar. (g) Thereafter, I.O. has stated to have complied with the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. (h) Thereafter, Dy. S.P. Sh. Khajana Ram also visited the spot and the room of the petitioner/accused was searched in his presence. (i) During the search of the room, 30 bottles of Kuff Care-T Codine Phosphate and Triplodine Hydrochloride syrup 50 ml were recovered. (j) Thereafter other proceedings at the spot were conducted. (k) Consequently, it is the case of the prosecution that 30 bottles of Kuff Care-T containing codin Phophate and Triplodine Hydroculoride syrup of 50 ml each were found and further, on personal search of the petitioner, 15.66 grams chitta (heroine) has been recovered. (l) After completing other procedural requirement of NDPS Act, the seized contraband was sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination. (l) After completing other procedural requirement of NDPS Act, the seized contraband was sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination. Report of Chemical examiner, is as follows: Heroin.--The exhibit stated as heroin in cloth parcel marked in the laboratory as A is a sample of Diacetly morphine (heroin) = 15.377 g 2. KUFFCARE-T Codeine phosphate is present in the exhibit in the stated as Kuffcare-T in cloth parcel marked in the laboratory as B=1.725 kg 3 ELECTRONIC BALANCE The exhibit stated as electronic balance in cloth parcel marked in the laboratory as C contain contents of Diacetyl morphine (heroin) 4. SYRINGE The exhibit stated as Syringe in cloth parcel marked in the laboratory as C. contain contents of Diacetyl morphine (Herion) 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case and entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail grounds: (a) The petitioner is a young man of 24-25 years of age. I am of the considered opinion that one more chance can be afforded to the petitioner to reform. (b) Investigation is complete and police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands filed in the Court of Special Judge, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, HP. (c) Petitioner/Accused is in Judicial Custody since 10-12-2018, i.e. for more than six months. (d) He is a permanent resident of address mentioned in Memo of parties and hence his presence can always be secured to face trial. 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 personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Special Judge/Ld. Sessions Judge or Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Solan District. 7. 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 in acceptance of all such conditions: (a) The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (b) The petitioner undertakes not to threaten or browbeat the complainant or to use any pressure tactics. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner in acceptance of all such conditions: (a) The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (b) The petitioner undertakes not to threaten or browbeat the complainant or to use any pressure tactics. (c) 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. (d) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial and to appear before the Court on each and every date unless so exempted. 8. 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. 9. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.