Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 313 (HP)

Narender Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-05

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. 61 of 2020, dated 09.04.2020, under Section 15 of ND&PS Act and Section 39(1)A of HP Excise Act, registered in Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, 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 08.04.2020 a police team was on routine patrol/law and order duty. At about 06:31 p.m. at place Ghatnalu police got a secret tip-off that one Narender (petitioner herein) is involved in the business of selling charas, poppy straw and illicit liquor and in case his premises is raided contraband can be recovered. Police associated two independent witnesses and raided the house of the petitioner. During the course of raid police recovered a gunny bag, which contained some brownish powder. One more yellow bag and 30 (thirty) transparent envelops were also recovered. On being checked, the brownish powder was found to be poppy straw and yellow bag was found to have contained 06 (six) bottles of Indian made foreign liquor (Mcdowelles) each 750 mls. Police also recovered currency notes worth Rs.5,19,600/- (rupees five lac nineteen thousand six hundred). On weighment, poppy straw, alongwith the gunny bag, was found to be 5.368 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and the petitioner was arrested. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner was medically examined and during the course of investigation it was unearthed that four more cases of ND&PS and Excise Act have been registered against the petitioner. As per the police, in one of the cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail and despite that he was found involved in selling narcotics. Report of the forensic analysis is awaited. As per the police, in one of the cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail and despite that he was found involved in selling narcotics. Report of the forensic analysis is awaited. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and he is a habitual offender 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 and may also indulge in such activities again, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 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 nothing is to be recovered from him and in the wake of the fact that 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 and may also indulge in such activities again, as he has already been booked in four more cases of ND&PS Act and Excise Act. 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 nothing is to be recovered from him and in the wake of the fact that his custody is not at all required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is permanent 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 fact that now nothing remains to be recovered from him and his custody is not at all required by the police, considering the quantity of recovered contraband and the fact that petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case 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. 61 of 2020, dated 09.04.2020, under Section 15 of ND&PS Act and Section 39(1)A of HP Excise 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. 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.