Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 700 (HP)

Pawan Kumar @ Gora v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-08

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 25 of 2019, dated 12.2.2019, registered under Sections 20, 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred as "NDPS Act" for short) in Police Station, Chowari, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh 2. Status report stands filed, wherein after re-iterating the incident of interception of vehicle being driven by co-accused Narinder Singh at Tunuhatti and recovery of 13 KG 434 Grams of charas/cannabis therefrom, it has been stated that during police custody of co-accused Narender Singh, he had disclosed that recovered charas shall be sold to co-accused Surendra Rani W/o Surinder Kumar, R/o Ludhiana, Punjab and on previous occasions also he had sold charas to her and he had been in regular contact with her for selling/purchasing of charas through his Mobile number 88944- 97185 and Mobile number 98159-16506 of Surendra Rani. Upon this disclosure Call Details Report of mobiles were obtained and it revealed that Mobile number 98159-16506 had been issued in the name of Pawan Kumar (petitioner) and this Call Details Report also revealed that co-accused Narinder Singh and Surendra Rani were well acquainted and in constant touch with each other. 3. On the basis of aforesaid material, a Special Team was sent to Ludhiana on 12.2.2019, but till 14.2.2019, neither Surendra Rani nor Pawan Kumar could be apprehended and ultimately on 15.2.2019 at about 8:15 A.M. one car bearing No. PB-10 DB-8951 was intercepted by Special Team of Police with help of local CIA Police. Including driver, there were three occupants in the said car. Surendra Rani co-accused was sitting on the rear seat, whereas other two i.e. Sanjay Khanna S/o Surendra Rani and petitioner Pawan Kumar were sitting on the front seat and Sanjay Khanna was driving the car. During that checking 150 gms. charas was recovered from co-accused Surindera Rani and a case under Section 20 of NDPS Act was registered against three occupants of the vehicle in Police Station, Jodhawal, District Ludhiana and by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, they were sent in judicial custody vide order dated 2.3.2019. 4. During that checking 150 gms. charas was recovered from co-accused Surindera Rani and a case under Section 20 of NDPS Act was registered against three occupants of the vehicle in Police Station, Jodhawal, District Ludhiana and by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, they were sent in judicial custody vide order dated 2.3.2019. 4. It is further stated in the status report that production warrant was obtained from the Court at Dalhousie on 17.2.2019 and custody of Surendra Rani and Pawan Kumar (petitioner) was transferred to Police custody of Police Station Chawari and in the Police lockup Surendra Rani and Pawan Kumar were identified by coaccused Narender Singh, who was already in lockup, as the persons, to whom he was going to sell the charas recovered from him on 12.2.2019. 5. It has also come in status report that co-accused Narender Singh had disclosed that he had also recorded his conversation with Surendra Rani in his mobile, whereupon his mobile was taken in to possession and on hearing of audio recording therein, it was found that co-accused Narender Singh was discussing with Surendra Rani on Mobile No. 98159-16506 with respect to supply of 13.5 KG charas and consideration of amount for that, whereupon Deputy Superintendent of Police had filed an application for voice sample of Narender Singh and Surendra Rani in the Court of JMIC, but Narender Singh and Surendera Rani had refused to give their voice samples. 6. It is concluded in the status report that accused Narender Singh, Surendra Rani and Pawan Kumar (Petitioner) are involved in business of supplying charas and on 12.2.2019 also accused Narender Singh was going to deliver the charas to Surendra Rani and in this regard he had talks with Surendera Rani on Mobile No. 98159-16506, sim whereof has been found to be in the name of petitioner Pawan Kumar and therefore, Pawan Kumar has also been arrayed as an accused under Section 29 of NDPS Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from petitioner Pawan Kumar in cases registered in Himachal Pradesh or at Ludhiana. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from petitioner Pawan Kumar in cases registered in Himachal Pradesh or at Ludhiana. He has further submitted that though the sim of mobile number, which was being used by co-accused Surendra Rani, has been issued in the name of petitioner Pawan Kumar, however, the said sim was being used by Surendra Rani, as also evident from the prosecution case and disclosure of co-accused Narender Singh and further that petitioner Pawan Kumar has been implicated in present case only for the reason that he was found sitting in the car being driven by son of Surendra Rani, wherefrom 150 gms charas was also recovered from Surendra Rani, despite the fact that, at that time also, nothing was recovered from petitioner Pawan Kumar. Further that the Investigating Officer had asked for voice sample of Narender Singh and Surendra Rani, but not of Pawan Kumar as there is no such talks taken place between coaccused Narender Singh and petitioner Pawan Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though petitioner is trying to defend him from the jail, but he is facing difficulty in leading defence evidence and because of his custody, his right to defend his personal liberty is being prejudiced. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgments passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court. 9. In judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High court in CRM-M-53638 of 2018, titled Dalbir Singh @ Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, it was held that 31 KG of Ganja was recovered from coaccused and the only allegation against bail petitioner therein was that he had supplied 31 KG Ganja to co-accused. Similarly in CRM-M-475- 2019, titled Harpreet @ Happy Vs. State of Punjab also, it was found by the Court that except disclosure statement of co-accused, there was no cogent evidence to connect the petitioner therein with the crime. 10. In judgment passed by Delhi High Court in bail application No. 1590 of 2018, titled Rajesh Sharma Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, no independent incriminating evidence or corroborative material to connect the bail petitioner therein with commission of subject office, except disclosure of co-accused that he had purchased the contraband from the bail petitioner, was found in existence. 11. In the aforesaid three cases, bail was granted. 12. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, no independent incriminating evidence or corroborative material to connect the bail petitioner therein with commission of subject office, except disclosure of co-accused that he had purchased the contraband from the bail petitioner, was found in existence. 11. In the aforesaid three cases, bail was granted. 12. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish local surety also. 13. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General, that petitioner Pawan Kumar and Surendra Rani have been found actively associated with each other dealing with business of drugs supply and the said fact stand corroborated from the fact that mobile phone, through which co-accused Narender Singh was having regular talks with Surendra Rani, was of petitioner Pawan Kumar and on 14.2.2019 also Pawan Kumar and Surendra Rani were found in company of each other and at that time also 150 grams charas was recovered from the vehicle occupied by them, whereupon they were arrested by Punjab Police and their custody has been transferred from Punjab Police to Himachal Police in the present case and further that there is no explanation for user of mobile number by Surendra Rani for dealing with the business of drugs, issued in the name of petitioner Pawan Kumar. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that in present case statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, whereupon accused including the petitioner, have expressed their desire to lead evidence in defence and case has been fixed for recording of two DWs on 27.10.2020. 14. Drug addiction has become one of the curses in the dissolution of human personality, promoting conditions for various forms of human degradation, whose consequences spread to crime and lawlessness. Therefore, NDPS Act has been enacted with stringent provisions, wherein adverse onus has also been put upon the accused to prove contrary to the prosecution case. 15. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, quantum of contraband involved and the advance stage of the trial, I do not consider the present case as a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this advance stage of trial which is about to be concluded, as it may also hamper the trial, pending for 27.10.2020. 16. 15. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, quantum of contraband involved and the advance stage of the trial, I do not consider the present case as a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this advance stage of trial which is about to be concluded, as it may also hamper the trial, pending for 27.10.2020. 16. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with direction to the trial Court to ensure recording of defence evidence on next date of hearing and in any case to complete defence evidence on or before 30.11.2020 and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31.12.2020 with further direction to the parties including petitioner to ensure effective representation of their respective counsel in the Court on the date fixed for recording evidence or any dates fixed subsequent thereto, enabling the Court to record the evidence and conclude the trial in time bound manner. Parties are also expected to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The petition stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.