Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 786 (HP)

Guru Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-02

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. 188 of 2020, dated 10.07.2020, under Sections 21 and 22 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Haroli, District Una, 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 the place and neither in a position to tamper either with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, after receiving an information about narcotic substances on 10.07.2020, police party consisting of ASI Shiv Prakash, HHC Kamal Kishan No.266, Constable Didar Singh No.289, proceeded for patrolling towards Palakwah Pul in a private vehicle. At about 12:05 p.m., when the police party reached near Palakwah Pul, they spotted a person standing on the right side of the road, holding a sky blue coloured packet in his hand. On seeing the police party, the person got perplexed and threw the packet beneath the side of the road. SHO after getting down from the vehicle, inquired about the antecedents of the person, who in turn, revealed his name as Guru Dutt, s/o Onkar Nath, R/o Village Luthre, P.O., Hiran, Tehsil Haroli. At the same time, one another person, named Rajinder Kumar, S/o Bishan Dass, R/o Ward No.5, VPO Palakwah, was also heading towards Palakwah, stopped by the police and associated in the investigation after disclosing his about the spot position. Police checked the packet thrown by Guru Dutt in the presence of witness, Rajinder Kumar. On opening the packet, a carton box, on which Alprazolam Tablets I.P.0.5mg was written, was found. When the box was opened, it was found to be containing 12 leaves of Alprazolam. Each leave was found to be containing 15 pink tablets. Besides this, two green leaves were also found, on which, Lomotil Tablets was written, which was found to be containing 100 tablets (totaling 280 tablets). On wheighment with electronic scale, the tablets were found to be 40 grams. Each leave was found to be containing 15 pink tablets. Besides this, two green leaves were also found, on which, Lomotil Tablets was written, which was found to be containing 100 tablets (totaling 280 tablets). On wheighment with electronic scale, the tablets were found to be 40 grams. Guru Dutt could not produce any licence or permit for possessing such quantity of tablets. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On personal search of the accused, nothing incriminating was found. Scientific samples were separated for forensic analysis. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is actively and continuously involved in sale/purchase of contraband. The petitioner, at this stage, in case enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application may be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. 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 sending the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, 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, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for further investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for further investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the quantity of contraband, which is not a commercial quantity, also the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since long, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, so he is neither in a position to flee from justice, nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, 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, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail in case FIR No. 188 of 2020, dated 10.07.2020, under Sections 21 and 22 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., on 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. (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.