Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 73 (HP)

Rahul Sharma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 17/2019, dated 07.10.2019, under Section 39(1) A of HP Excise Act, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and 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 07.10.2019, a rukka was received in Police Station Puruwala, wherein Sub Inspector Subhash Kumar has stated that when he was on petrolling duty at place Gorkhuwala, an information was received that at Khodri Majri police nakka, a bolero car, bearing registration number PB-11BY-9712, carrying illicit liquor, had been stopped. On inquiry, the driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name to be Rahul Sharma. When the vehicle was got checked, 84 bottles of Gravity whisky, 12, bottles of Royal Stag and 10 cartons of Kings Gold (containing 48 quarters of liquor in each box) were recovered. The recovered liquor was found not permitted to be sold in State of Himachal Pradesh, as it was only permitted to be sold in Chandigarh. The samples of the recovered illicit liquor were taken for chemical analysis. After completing all codal formalities, FIR No. 17/2019, dated 07.10.2019, under Section 39(1) A of HP Excise Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. 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 Pubjab and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that a huge quantity of illicit liquor has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Lastly, he prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. 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 the investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the Court, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the recovered quantity of liquor, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of Punjab and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the trial Court, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where 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. 17/2019, dated 07.10.2019, under Section 39(1) A of HP Excise Act, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his 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. 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.