Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 484 (HP)

Kartik Sharma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2021-07-30

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner-Kartik Sharma, who is behind the bars since 14.4.2021, has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 76, dated 14.4.2021, under S.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Drugs Act, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to order dated 16.7.2021, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 14.4.2021, police stopped one private bus bearing registration No. HP-62B-0829 for checking. Since person sitting on Seat No. 37, i.e. present petitioner was unable to disclose reason for traevlling in the bus from Solan to Shimla, police deemed it necessary to cause search of his person as well as bag carried by him. Allegedly, the police in the presence of independent witnesses checked the bag being carried by the bail petitioner and recovered 11.21 gram chitta/heroin alongwith one spoon and syringe. Petitioner disclosed to the police that he is a drug addict and as such, he has bought aforesaid quantity of contraband from some auto driver in Chandigarh but he was unable to disclose the number of the auto rikshaw. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and since then he is behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of challan in the court of law, submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the past antecedents/credentials of the accused, he does not deserve any leniency, as such, his prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. He further contends that on 16.3.2021, small quantity of heroin came to be recovered from the bail petitioner and challan stands filed in the competent court of law but yet the bail petitioner has not mended his ways and has again indulged in similar illegal activities and as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. He further contends that on 16.3.2021, small quantity of heroin came to be recovered from the bail petitioner and challan stands filed in the competent court of law but yet the bail petitioner has not mended his ways and has again indulged in similar illegal activities and as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on 14.4.2021, 11.21 gram of heroin /chitta came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner that too in the presence of the independent witnesses, and as such, it can not be said that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Record further reveals that on 16.3.2021 small quantity of heroin/charas was recovered from conscious possession of bail petitioner but he, within one month of registration of case on 16.3.2021, has again indulged in illegal activities as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 19 years old and he has become drug addict coupled with the fact that there is none to take care of his ailing mother, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered. Since, there is no material available on record suggestive of fact that bail petitioner had been indulging in the illegal trade of narcotics, this Court is of the view that bail petitioner requires to be taken to rehabilitation center at first opportunity so that he is brought back to mainstream without any delay. Learned counsel representing the petitioner informed this Court that the mother of the petitioner had taken the bail petitioner to rehabilitation in the past, but before he could be fully cured/rehabilitated, he again purchased narcotic substance for his own consumption. It also emerges from the pleadings adduced on record that bail petitioner resides with his mother, who though is a Government employee, but not keeping well on account of paralytic attack suffered by her. 5. It also emerges from the pleadings adduced on record that bail petitioner resides with his mother, who though is a Government employee, but not keeping well on account of paralytic attack suffered by her. 5. True it is, that one month prior to lodging of FIR in case at hand, petitioner was caught with small quantity of contraband, but as has been taken note hereinabove, petitioner has become a drug addict and in case, he is kept behind bars for indefinite period, he will not get rid of habit which he has unfortunately developed in the company of some unscrupulous persons, rather he is required to be taken to rehabilitation center immediately so that appropriate treatment is given to him and efforts are made to bring him back to mainstream. Since, quantity of contraband, if any, in the case is not commercial, rather intermediate, rigors of Section 37 are not attracted. There cannot be any quarrel with the submission made by Learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner has indulged in a crime, having adverse impact on the society as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, but while considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, this Court also needs to take care of the future of the petitioner, who, in case, is not provided an opportunity to mend his ways and get himself treated, would may turn out to be a hardened criminal in future. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 7. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 7. Hon'Ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation,2012 1 SCC 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 10. 9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 10. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed and order dated 16.7.2021 is made absolute, subject to the bail petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. 13. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.