Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 211 (HP)

Dhanpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-03-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
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. 7 of 2020, dated 10.01.2020, under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is 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 10.01.2020 a police team had laid a naka at Chambi Mod for checking the vehicles. At about 05:15 p.m. 10-12 vehicles were stopped for checking and in the interregnum a person was spotted walking hastily. On suspicion, the said person was nabbed and he was perplexed. Police associated independent witnesses and in their presence the said person disclosed his name as Ankit, resident of Muzafarpur, U.P. He was carrying a bag, which, on being checked, found containing capsules Spasmo Proxivon Plus. Total 30 strips, each having 24 capsules, and in total 720 capsules were recovered. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. The capsules were taken into possession. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. A case under the apt Sections of ND&PS Act was registered and the investigation ensued. The accused was arrested and during the course of interrogation he divulged that he purchased the contraband from a Pharmacy at Meerut, U.P. Upon the identification of the accused, police visited the said Pharmacy and found the petitioner there. The petitioner was arrested. The investigation reveals that the petitioner and accused Ankit were in touch with each other through mobile phones. Police also found money transaction between the petitioner and accused Ankit. As per the police, the petitioner is involved in selling prohibited drugs for his profit and thereby spreading the menace of drugs in the society. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. Police also found money transaction between the petitioner and accused Ankit. As per the police, the petitioner is involved in selling prohibited drugs for his profit and thereby spreading the menace of drugs in the society. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is resident of U.P., so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when his custody is not at all required by the police, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime. He has further argued that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is resident of U.P., so it is prayed 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 investigation is complete, the fact that he has been roped on the bald aspersions of accused Ankit and in the wake of the fact that custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. 7. At this stage, considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, forensic report, the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that contraband is allegedly recovered from accused Ankit and not from the petitioner and it was accused Ankit, who named the petitioner, now the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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. 7 of 2020, dated 10.01.2020, under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, 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.