Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 305 (HP)

Manoj Kumar @ Moji v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-03

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. 55 of 2020, dated 29.04.2020, under Section 18 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner 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. 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 29.04.2020, at about 09:15 p.m., a police team was on patrol duty. At place Badripur towards Taruwala road, police spotted a person, who, on seeing the police, threw something. On suspicion, the said person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Manoj Kumar @ Moji (petitioner herein), resident of Badripur, Paonta Sahib. The packet thrown by the petitioner was checked and it was found containing two more packets, which contained some blackish substance, which was opium. On weighment the contraband was 84 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. A case was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga, for forensic analysis and report reveals that it was opium. During the course of interrogation and investigation, the petitioner disclosed that on 29.04.2020 at Gondpur some unknown person from Bihar met him and from him he purchased the contraband for Rs. 4000/-. As per the police one more case is registered against the petitioner and investigation stands completed. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, 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 record, 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his custody is not at all required by the police. So, the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner 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 investigation is complete and the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, considering the quantity of the contraband, the fact that now the investigation stands completed and the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, 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. 55 of 2020, dated 29.04.2020, under Section 18 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty 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.