Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 849 (HP)

Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-24

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 56 of 2020, dated 15.04.2020, under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Padhar at Darang, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 3. As per the petitioner, he 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, so he may be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 15.04.2020, Smt. Seeta Devi, Patwari, Patwar Circle Kathog (complainant) made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that she, being a member of a team, comprising Sub Divisional Magistrate and Naib Tehsildar, was visiting villages for creating awareness qua Covid-19. When the above team visited Mohal Dhanbaag, they received a secret tip-off that in the village opium is being cultivated. The team visited the field where opium was being cultivated. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and investigation ensued. Police visited the spot, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon Khasra No. 414 total 1128 opium plants were being cultivated, out of which 5 (five) plants were separated as sample. Police completed all the codal formalities and 1123 opium plants were destroyed. Upon chemical examination of the sample plants, they were found to be sample of opium poppy plants. The revenue records reveal that the land, where the opium plants were being cultivated, belongs to Daagi Ram, Sher Singh and Maghru Ram. It was also unearthed that Maghru ram had died and the land, where the opium plants were being cultivated, approximately 50 years back, was given to the ancestors of Puran Chand (petitioner herein) for cultivation. It has also come in the investigation that the land, where the opium plants were being cultivated, is in possession of the petitioner. As per the police, the petitioner did not join the investigation, investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. It has also come in the investigation that the land, where the opium plants were being cultivated, is in possession of the petitioner. As per the police, the petitioner did not join the investigation, investigation is complete and the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he was found involved in a serious crime, the petitioner did not join the investigation and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he 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 the place. He has further argued that as the investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the police do not at all require the custody of the petitioner. He has argued that no purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, 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 and he did not join the investigation. He has further argued that in case he is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, so the application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is local resident and thus is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. He has further argued that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. He has further argued that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the manner in which the alleged opium plants were found to be cultivated in the field, the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, so he is not in a position to flee from justice, considering the age of the petitioner, who is 55 years old, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police and the facts that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and also the fact that sending the petitioner behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, so 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, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 56 of 2020, dated 15.04.2020, under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Padhar at Darang, District Mandi, 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. (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.