Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 524 (HP)

Rajiv Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - 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.176 of 2019, dated 24.12.2019, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 2. 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 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. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 24.12.2019, the police party was on patrolling duty and had laid a naka at Damtal Indora road near Surajpur, at about 9:10 p.m. one scooty red in colour, bearing registration No.PB07BT-5752, came from Indora side, which was signaled to stop. The police party asked the rider to show the documents of the vehicle. In the meantime, one Jarnail Singh, was also associated a witness and search of the vehicle was carried out and from the dickey of scooty, a polythene packet containing chita or heroin was found. On checking with drug detection kit, it was found to be heroin/chitta. On weighing with the help of digital weighing machine, it was found 8.02 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police made the relevant recoveries, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner was arrested. As per the police, after completion of investigation challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed on 2.9.2020 for checking of copies. 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 tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. 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. 5. 4. 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. 5. 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 permanent 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. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. Heard. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for last more than eight months and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, investigation in the matter is completed, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, challan has also been presented before the learned Trial Court, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, he is neither in a position to flee from justice, 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 favour of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in this case FIR No.176 of 2019, dated 24.12.2019, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) 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 join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. ii. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) 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 join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.