Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 289 (HP)

Prem Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-05-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on record. 2. By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.63/2019, dated 20.03.2019, registered against him at Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (hereinafter referred to 'NDPS' for short) Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was apprehended by police party on 20.03.2019 and was found to be in conscious possession of 283 grams of Charas at Mohan Park, near Chambaghat, District Solan, H.P. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that earlier application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail before the learned Trial Court stands rejected and a similar application which was filed by the petitioner before this Court was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2019. The challan already stands field and as no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, no purpose is going to be solved by keeping him in custody, especially keeping in view the fact that the alleged quantity of Charas recovered from the petitioner is 283 grams, which is less than commercial quantity and thus, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted. He further states that in the event of grant of bail to the petitioner, he shall comply with all the terms and conditions which shall be imposed by the Court. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the bail, states that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence which has been alleged against the petitioner, present petition deserves to be dismissed. He states that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal and in case of grant of bail, there is every possibility that he may flee to Nepal and thus, evade the trial. He has further argued that the order vide which the bail application of the present petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Court below, copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, is a well reasoned order and there is no change of circumstance warranting any interference by this Court to release the petitioner on bail. 6. He has further argued that the order vide which the bail application of the present petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Court below, copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, is a well reasoned order and there is no change of circumstance warranting any interference by this Court to release the petitioner on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the status report. 7. The quantity of Charas allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner is stated to be 283 grams. The petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2019. He continues to be in judicial custody as of now. The challan in the mater already stands filed and the case is now listed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses on 04.06.2020. At the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, the Court is not to go into the merits of the case, because whether or not the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him, has to be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it by the respective parties. 8. At this stage, the Court has to inter alia see the nature of the offence alleged against the accused, possibility of the accused jumping the bail and evading the trial, if bail is granted to him, as also the probability of the petitioner again indulging in similar activities in case he is enlarged on bail. 9. No doubt, the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious as the allegation is that he was apprehended with the contraband, however, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the petitioner is not having any previous criminal history. To meet the contention of the State that the petitioner may flee to Nepal, in the event of grant of bail, as he is a citizen of Nepal, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that father of the petitioner was a Government servant with the State of Himachal Pradesh and the family of the petitioner is permanently settled at Chambaghat. He has further stated that the petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail. He has further stated that the petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail. He submits that the apprehension of the State that the petitioner may evade the trial by fleeing to Nepal, can be taken care of by imposing condition that the petitioner shall not leave the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh without the leave of the learned Trial Court. 10. Accordingly, as this Court is of the view that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been allegedly apprehended with 283 grams of Charas, which is an intermediate quantity and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than an year, it will be in the interest of justice, in case he is ordered to be released on bail. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. This petition is thus allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case F.I.R. No. 63/2019, dated 20.03.2019, registered against him at Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 20 of NDPS Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within three weeks from today to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; and (iv) He shall not leave the territory of Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the Court. 13. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. 13. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti.