Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 510 (HP)

Sandeep Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-21

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. 93 of 2020, dated 28.07.2020, under Sections 21 & 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Shimla, 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 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 27.07.2020 a police team was on patrol duty in the areas of Solan city, Kumarhatti and Dharampur. At about 11:35 p.m., at Dohri diwar, Solan, police got a secret tip-off that two persons, after selling heroin, are coming to Solan in vehicle, having registration No. HP52B-8207, and in case the said vehicle is searched, heroin can be recovered. On 28.07.2020, at about 12:25 a.m., near Kumarhatti Chowk, police spotted vehicle, having registration No. HP52B-8207, coming, but, despite being signaled to stop, the driver did not stop the same. The vehicle was chased by the police and ultimately stopped near Thakur Complex. There were two persons inside the said vehicle. Despite best endeavor, the police could not associated any independent witness, as it was night time and no one was ready to be associated as independent witness. On being asked, the driver of the said vehicle divulged his name as Rusheel Tanta and other person disclosed his name as Sandeep Sharma (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the police conducted the search of the vehicle and found a transparent polythene pouch, which contained some yellowish solid substance and an empty cigarette box, which had a transparent polythene pouch, stuffed with crushed, powder like substance. The petitioner and co-accused disclosed that the recovered substance is heroin. On weighment, the total contraband was found to be 37.46 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. The petitioner and the other coaccused were arrested, the vehicle in question was taken into possession alongwith its documents and key. The petitioner and co-accused disclosed that the recovered substance is heroin. On weighment, the total contraband was found to be 37.46 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. The petitioner and the other coaccused were arrested, the vehicle in question was taken into possession alongwith its documents and key. During the course of investigation and interrogation, co-accused Rusheel Tanta disclosed that he is habitual of consuming heroin and about six months back, at Theog, he met the petitioner and became friends. On 25.07.2020 both of them went to Chandigarh in a vehicle of their friend, namely Bobby. At Panchukla, one of the friends of co-accused Rusheel introduced them to a drug seller, from whom they purchased heroin for Rs. 40,000/-. The petitioner and the co-accused feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of the drug peddler at Panchukla. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, he is dealing in narcotics and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 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 remains 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. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice and may tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice and may tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered from him and in the wake of the fact that 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 role of the petitioner in the offences alleged, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Shimla, H.P., thus not in a position to flee from justice and also not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, also considering the facts that custody of the petitioner is not required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered from him, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the fact that the petitioner is not a drug peddler and he simply accompanied the co-accused, who is a drug addict and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, 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. 93 of 2020, dated 28.07.2020, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, 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. 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.