Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 488 (HP)

Talbe Ram v. State Of H P

2021-08-02

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in case bearing FIR No. 23/2019, dated 01.02.2019, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent resident of district Mandi and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Tersely the facts of the case are that on 31.01.2019, police party was present at temporary Check Post Bajaura, around 10:30 P.M., a bus bearing No. DL-IP-C-4550 came from Bhuntar side, which was signaled to be stopped. When the police entered the bus and started checking the luggage of the passengers, the present bail petitioner and co-accused, who were sitting on seat numbers 1 and 2, got perplexed. The accused persons tried to hid something under their legs. On suspicion, the police officials checked the briefcase kept by the accused persons under their legs. On opening of the said briefcase, five packets, wrapped with plastic were found. When the said packets were opened and checked, charas in the shape of chapattis was found. On weighment, the contraband was found to be 2 Kgs and 225 grams. Thereafter, all the codal formalities were conducted. Consequently, FIR No. 23/2019, dated 01.02.2019, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 2 Kgs and 225 grams and in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records, carefully. 5. Mr. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records, carefully. 5. Mr. Praveen Chandel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner is behind the Bars for more than two years and has spent sufficient time behind the Bars and since trial has not commenced yet and is not likely to be completed in the near future, the petitioner be released on bail to meet the ends of justice. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the case is listed before the learned trial Court for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 4th September, 2021 and since no prosecution witness has yet been examined, at this stage, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. He has prayed that considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, the instant bail petition be dismissed. 7. 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 investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned trial Court. He has argued that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bail petition may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. 2 Kgs and 225 grams, the fact that prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and in case at this stage, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. So, considering the overall aspects of the case, which emerge from the record, and without discussing them elaborately at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is behind the Bars for more than two years and no prosecution witness has yet been examined, it is expected that learned trial Court will try to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible. 11. 10. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is behind the Bars for more than two years and no prosecution witness has yet been examined, it is expected that learned trial Court will try to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible. 11. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant petition and shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.