Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 267 (HP)

Kapil v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-05-04

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his bail in case FIR No. 21 of 2020, dated 18.03.2020, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 18.03.2020 a police team was on patrol duty around Sectors 1 & 2, Parwanoo. Police got a tip-off that in a village of Sector 1, Parwanoo, in the building of Shri Diwan Thakur, one Vijay Kumar is dealing in contrabands. Police formed a raiding party and associated one Shri Gagan Singh, as independent witness. Police visited the accommodation of said Vijay Kumar (co-accused) and found one Kapil (petitioner herein). The accommodation was searched and a grey bag was recovered, which contained a transparent pouch having some powder like substance. The recovered substance was found to be heroin and on weighment it was found to be 24.20 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Co-accused Vijay Kumar and the petitioner were arrested and during the course of investigation they divulged that they purchased the contraband from some unknown Nigerian at Delhi and they are habitual of consuming heroin. As per the police, report qua the contraband from FSL is awaited. 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, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. 5. 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. 6. 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, as he is resident of the place. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing is to be recovered from him and 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, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. 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 nothing is to be recovered from him and his custody is not at all required by the police, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, the fact that the petitioner is only 21 years old, he is habitual of consuming heroin and needs counseling and medical treatment, 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, his custody is not at all required by the police, he 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. 21 of 2020, dated 18.03.2020, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.