Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 136 (HP)

Sanjay v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-24

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2020
JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, Vacation J. - For possessing 39.42 grams of heroin, the petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as accused in FIR Number 194 of 2019, dated Sep 11, 2019, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (after now called 'NDPS Act'), in the file of Police Station Sadar Solan, Distt. Solan, HP, disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC , seeking regular bail. 2. Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report(s) as well as the Police file, to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Prior to the present bail petition, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC, before Special Judge-III, Solan, Distt. Solan, HP. However, vide order dated Dec 19, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition. Facts 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is that on Sep 10, 2019, police party was conducting patrolling to detect crime and substance abuse. At around 8.45 p.m., when the police party as present at place Dohri Diwar on NH-05 they noticed one person coming from Barog who tried to run away on being called by the police. The said person was nabbed on suspicion and disclosed his name as Arjun Singh. After associating an independent witness the police officials conducted search of the bag carried by Arjun Singh and recovered contraband which after testing from the Drug Detection Kit tested positive for Heroin. When weighed from digital scale, it measured 39.42 grams. The said Arjun Singh was arrested. During investigation Arjun Singh disclosed that he had purchased the recovered heroin on Sep 8/9, 2019 from Sanjay Bhoria, petitioner herein, on cash payment of Rs. 42,000/-. He further disclosed that earlier also he had purchased Heroin from the petitioner Sanjay and gave identification of the building in Peermussalla, Punjab where he was residing. During further investigation of the case petitioner Sanjay was apprehended. His further interrogation led to recover of 95.98 grams of Heroin from his quarters near Panchkula. Subsequently, the police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the CrPC and arrested the petitioner. Analysis And Reasoning : 5. During further investigation of the case petitioner Sanjay was apprehended. His further interrogation led to recover of 95.98 grams of Heroin from his quarters near Panchkula. Subsequently, the police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the CrPC and arrested the petitioner. Analysis And Reasoning : 5. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State. 6. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule, and S. 2 (xxiii-a), defines a small quantity as the quantity lesser than the quantity specified in the schedule of NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, which is now generally called as intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which specify an offense, also mention that minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. Commercial quantity mandates minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act. 7. The substance recovered from the petitioner is just 39.42 grams and 95.98 grams and close to small quantity. In the status report, there is no mention of any previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. This Court is inclined to afford last opportunity to the petitioner, making it very clear that in case, the petitioner repeats the offence, then this bail is liable to be cancelled. 8. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, the judicial custody of the petitioner/accused is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, and I am inclined to grant bail on the following grounds, but subject to stringent conditions: a) As per the FIR, the substance involved is heroin, mentioned at Sr. No. 56 of the Notification, issued under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of NDPS Act, specifying small and commercial quantities of drugs and psychotropic substances. b) The quantity of drug involved is less than Commercial Quantity but greater than Small Quantity. No. 56 of the Notification, issued under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of NDPS Act, specifying small and commercial quantities of drugs and psychotropic substances. b) The quantity of drug involved is less than Commercial Quantity but greater than Small Quantity. As such the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act shall not apply in the present case. Resultantly, the present case has to be treated like any other case of grant of bail in a penal offence. c) The petitioner is in judicial custody since Sep 13, 2019. d) The investigation in the case is almost complete and the report under section 173(2) CrPC stands filed. e) The petitioner is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of parties; therefore, his presence can always be secured. f) In the status report, there is no mention of previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. 9. 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 two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the Court exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is registered. 10. The Court executing the personal and surety bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, his family members, and of sureties, through AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, etc. The petitioner shall mention phone numbers and other details, on the reverse page of the bonds. 11. The Counsel for the accused and the attesting official shall explain all conditions of this bail to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants, and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court, if such Court directs to do so. b) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial. c) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. d) The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant and witnesses, to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics. b) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial. c) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. d) The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant and witnesses, to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics. e) 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. f) The petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer in any manner whatsoever. g) In case, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused of the commission of any offence, prescribing the sentence of imprisonment of more than seven years and in case the bail petitioner is arraigned as an accused in any case, under the provisions of the NDPS Act, irrespective of the quantity, be it a small quantity, then within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioner shall intimate the SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR. It shall be open for the State to apply to this Court or to the Trial Court for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper. It is made clear that in such case the Court who would be considering such bail application(s) shall take into account that despite warning the accused has repeated the offence. h) Within 30 days from today, the petitioner shall sell, or surrender, all firearms along with ammunition, and arms licenses, if any, to the authority which had given such permission. 13. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental or other right, or any human right, or faces any other difficulty due to any condition, then, the petitioner may file a reasoned application for modification of such term(s). 14. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above-mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the Petitioner. 15. 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. 16. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the Petitioner. 15. 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. 16. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy dasti.