Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 413 (HP)

Neelam v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-07-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. 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. 290 of 2019, dated 22.08.2019, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, 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 permanent resident of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 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 22.08.2019 a police team had laid a nakka at Una to Mehatpur Road and at about 04:15 a.m. police signaled a Tata Safari car to stop, but the driver of the said car hurriedly reversed the vehicle and tried to flee. The said vehicle was stopped and the driver was apprehended. The vehicle was having registration No. HP-65A-9898. Police spotted one Shiv Kumar Saini, who was on his morning walk routine, so he was associated as an independent witness. The driver of the vehicle, who was baffled, disclosed his name as Mahinder Singh Patiyal and one female was sitting inside the vehicle, who disclosed her name as Neelam (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the police checked the vehicle and found 11 bags of white cement and the driver, on being asked, could not give any satisfactory reply qua the cement. Police also checked the vehicle thoroughly and found an iron sheet screwed, where the reserve tyre is kept. Police opened the said iron sheet by unscrewing the iron sheet and recovered a bag. Said bag was checked and found containing stick shaped substance kept in a polythene packet. The recovered substance was cannabis and on being weighed it was 2.630 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Personal search of accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal and that of the petitioner was conducted. From accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal one mobile phone and from the petitioner currency notes amounting to Rs. 92,820/- (rupees ninety two thousand eight hundred twenty) were recovered. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Personal search of accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal and that of the petitioner was conducted. From accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal one mobile phone and from the petitioner currency notes amounting to Rs. 92,820/- (rupees ninety two thousand eight hundred twenty) were recovered. Police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal and the petitioner were arrested. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that many cases under ND&PS Act and Excise Act have been registered against accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal and in one of the case he has been convicted. As per the police investigation, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal disclosed that he had purchased the contraband from one Teja at Sairopa, Great Himalayan National Park, Kullu. Police, despite extensive search, could not find said Teja. The recovered substance, on being chemically examined, found to be extract of cannabis. As per the police, after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned Trial Court on 04.11.2019 and now the case is listed for examination of prosecution witnesses on 22.07.2020. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, huge quantity of charas was recovered from her possession 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 6. The learned Senior 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 permanent resident of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 6. The learned Senior 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 permanent resident of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 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, petitioner is a lady, 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, huge quantity of charas was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioner and her husband (co-accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal) and in case, at this stage, the petitioner 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 quantity of recovered contraband, i.e. 2 kgs 630 grams, which is a commercial quantity, the manner and the way contraband was allegedly concealed in the vehicle, which rule out the possibility that the petitioner was unaware about the recovered contraband being transported in the said vehicle, also considering the fact that many cases under the apt Sections of ND&PS have been registered against accused Mahinder Singh Patiyal, who is husband of the petitioner, trial is in initial stage and in case at this stage petitioner is enlarged on bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, also considering the overall aspects of the case, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. 9. In view of what has been discussed herein above, the petition which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated on its own.