Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 767 (HP)

Chande Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-24

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 05 of 2019, dated 05.01.2019, registered against him under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Allegation against the petitioner is that 200 grams of charas was recovered from his conscious possession leading to the registration of FIR in which he stands arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is behind bars since 05.01.2019 and taking into consideration the fact that the alleged charas recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner is 200 grams only, he may be released on bail by imposing strict conditions upon him. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has objected the grant of bail and has argued that the present petitioner previously also has been convicted under the provisions of ND & PS Act and the sentence imposed upon him was of more than 10 years, as charas weighing 107 kgs. was found from his conscious possession. He submits that in case bail is granted to him, not only it will send a wrong message to the Society, but there is a possibility that he will again indulge in the same offence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report filed by the State. 6. The status report demonstrates that the challan in the case has already been filed before the appropriate Court and the case is now listed on 17th July, 2019 for further proceedings. Though it is not in dispute that presently allegation against the petitioner is that he has been apprehended with 200 grams of charas, but fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has already undergone 10 years conviction under the provisions of ND & PS Act on account of recovery of more than 107 Kgs. charas from him. Though it is not in dispute that presently allegation against the petitioner is that he has been apprehended with 200 grams of charas, but fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has already undergone 10 years conviction under the provisions of ND & PS Act on account of recovery of more than 107 Kgs. charas from him. While considering as to whether a person is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court, inter alia, has to see the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and also whether if released on bail, there is possibility or probability that the petitioner may again indulge in same or similar offence. Here the petitioner, who already stood convicted under the provisions of ND & PS Act, that too, for possession of more than 107 Kgs. of charas, has again been apprehended with 200 grams of charas. This Court is of the view that taking into consideration the past history of the petitioner, the possibility cannot be ruled out that if released on bail, he may again indulge in same or similar offence. Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012, decided on 16.01.2012 is of no assistance in the present case. Therein, the accused, who was a sitting Member of Parliament, was facing several criminal cases. Hon’ble Supreme Court while rejecting the objection raised against his plea for grant of bail, held that it was not in dispute that most of the cases registered against the accused therein had ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or were pending trial and merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the accused could not be rejected for grant of bail. Herein, the facts are totally different. Here the petitioner already stood convicted under the provisions of ND & PS Act for possession of more than 107 Kgs. of charas and now again he has been found in possession of 200 grams of charas. As the factual matrix in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing in the present case, therefore, reliance placed on the said judgment is totally misplaced. of charas and now again he has been found in possession of 200 grams of charas. As the factual matrix in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing in the present case, therefore, reliance placed on the said judgment is totally misplaced. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.