Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 327 (HP)

Gurmeshi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-10

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 her release in case FIR No. 11 of 2020, dated 09.01.2020, under Section 22 of the ND & PS Act, registered in Police Station Nurpur, 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. She 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 her behind the bars for an unlimited period, so she be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 09.01.2020 a police team was present at place Jabbar Khud, near Peer Baba Temple (Jasur). At about 02:25 p.m. police spotted a lady standing on the wall and she was carrying a carry bag. As the lady was looking baffled, so she was inquired by the police and during inquiry she threw the carry bag. On suspicion, the police associated independent witnesses and in presence of independent witnesses the lady was inquired. She disclosed her name as Gurmeshi @ Bholi (petitioner herein) and police also checked the carry bag thrown by her. The said bag contained capsules RIDLEY and the petitioner could not satisfactorily answer why she has kept those capsules. In total there were 390 capsules and the police had suspicion that the capsules are narcotics. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and a case under the apt section of ND&PS act was registered. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, the petitioner divulged that some unknown person gave her the capsules for selling and the profit was agreed to be divided. On being chemically tested the amount of Tramadol mark (RIDLEY) capsules 390 Hydrochloride was found to be 209.430 grams. On 10.02.2020 the petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court on 03.03.2020. On being chemically tested the amount of Tramadol mark (RIDLEY) capsules 390 Hydrochloride was found to be 209.430 grams. On 10.02.2020 the petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court on 03.03.2020. 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 she is enlarged on bail, she 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. 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, her custody is not at all required by the police and the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. 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, she is enlarged on bail, she 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, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court 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. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, she is 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, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, the fact that the petitioner is a lady and she 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 her favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 11 of 2020, dated 09.01.2020, under Section 22 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to her 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.