Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 777 (HP)

Dalip Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-25

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. 99 of 2019, dated 24.04.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, 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 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 24.04.2019, at about 06:20 a.m., a police team laid a nakka at place Nauni Chowk and stopped a taxi, bearing registration No. HP01A-4615, for checking. There were three occupants in the said taxi. The driver disclosed his name as Chaman Sharma (co-accused) and other two occupants divulged their names as Dalip Kumar (petitioner herein) and Ram Pal (co-accused). The petitioner and other accused could not give any satisfactory reply when they were asked about the First Aid Kit, which was kept the front passenger seat. Police associated independent witnesses and checked the said First Aid Kit, which contained some substance, which was Heroine. On weighment, the contraband was found to be 101.72 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. The petitioner and the accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused persons and the petitioner were medically examined. The petitioner disclosed to the police that he purchased the contraband from one Negro. On scientific analysis report revealed that the sample is that of Heroine. As per the police, the contraband has been purchased by the accused and the petitioner from some unknown Negro. On 07.06.2019 challan stands presented in the Court. The co-accused persons were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner is also involved in four other offences and FIRs have been registered against him. On 07.06.2019 challan stands presented in the Court. The co-accused persons were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner is also involved in four other offences and FIRs have been registered against him. As per the police, the petitioner is very clever person and in case at this stage 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. 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that co-accused have been enlarged on bail, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be also enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and his involvement was also found in other serious offences. He has further argued that in case the petitioner 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, especially when the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. 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 the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after taking into consideration the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the fact that other accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court, investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented in the Court, the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, the quantity of the recovered contraband and all other facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice would only be met in case the petitioner is released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 99 of 2019, dated 24.04.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, 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.