Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 297 (HP)

Om Prakash v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-05-29

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 release in case FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 15.04.2016, under Sections 18 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 3. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 15.04.2016 police got a tip-off that opium is being cultivated in the fields near Nagaun. Police party went to the spot and found opium plants on two fields. Total 190 opium plants were being grown and smallest plant amongst all was two feet two inches. The police with the help of revenue staff got measured the fields and upon the orders of the competent authority opium plants were destroyed and five plants from each field were kept for scientific analysis. All the codal formalities were completed and it was unearthed that the said fields were owned by the petitioner, so a case was registered against him and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Scientific analysis revealed that the samples sent for analysis were of opium plants. The petitioner in order to evade his arrest absconded and he was arrested in another ND&PS case on 15.07.2017 and his custody was transferred to police of Police Station, Karsog. Since 15th July, 2017, the petitioner is behind the bars. As per the police, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and the same is under consideration. Lastly, it has been prayed that the application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he has committed serious crime, initially he tried to evade his arrest and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also again flee from justice. 5. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 5. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and behind the bars for the last more than two years and ten months, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and he is also found involved in other ND&PS cases, thus he is an habitual offender. He has further argued that in case he is enlarged on bail he may again commit similar offence, try to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. Lastly, it has been prayed that the application of the petitioner 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, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court 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. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, so he is not in a position to flee from justice, the fact that he is behind the bars for the last more than two years and ten months, he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is 50 years old and permanent resident of the place and considering the facts that challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, 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. 56 of 2016, dated 15.04.2016, under Sections 18 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, 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. Copy dasti.