Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 854 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. State of H. P.

2022-12-20

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), in FIR No.60 of 2022, dated 17.4.2022, registered in Police Station Banjar, District Kullu H.P., under Sections 15, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. Status report stands filed and record was also made available. 3. As per the status report, on 17.4.2022 at about 4:30 a.m., SHO, Police Station Banjar, going from Batahar Chowk Banjar towards Devhari, alongwith companion Police Officials, noticed that a car coming from opposite direction was not facilitating pass to a truck going ahead of police vehicle and thus truck driver had to stop his truck on the road, whereupon Police Official alongwith SHO, except driver, came out of the police vehicle. On noticing the police in the headlight of the vehicle, car driver moved back his car in a fast speed in reverse gear and because of narrow and hilly road, hit his vehicle with the hill on the left side of the road. Thereafter, he came out of the car and ran towards Devhari forest. Another person was sitting on left front seat of the car. For suspicion about having some illegal articles in possession, person sitting on the left front seat of the car was apprehended and driver of car was tried to be chased, but due to darkness, he could not be chased and Police Official, who went behind him, came back to the spot after about one hour. Truck driver was associated, as a witness, who disclosed his name, as Mukthiar Ali. Person over powered from the car disclosed his name as Vijay Kumar alongwith his address and name of driver who fled from the spot as Gurpreet Singh with his address with further statement that car belongs to Gurpreet Singh and he had run away alongwith key of the car. On checking, no document of the vehicle was found, however, in the dickey of car, two bags containing chura post/poppy husk/poppy straw was recovered. On weighing, total 50 Kg 308 grams poppy straw was found in bags. 4. On checking, no document of the vehicle was found, however, in the dickey of car, two bags containing chura post/poppy husk/poppy straw was recovered. On weighing, total 50 Kg 308 grams poppy straw was found in bags. 4. Apart from bags containing poppy straw, number plates, having different numbers thereon other than the number reflected in the number plates fixed on the car, were also recovered from dickey of the car. 5. On casual inquiry, Vijay Kumar disclosed that he and Gurpreet Singh were residents of the same village and they had purchased poppy straw by spending money in equal shares. 6. By sending rukka to the Police Station, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. On finding sufficient material, Vijay Kumar was arrested. Vijay Kumar further disclosed his mobile number as 7743074095, mobile number of Gurpreet Singh as 7347641054 and that of Chaman Kumar as 8219775994, with further disclosure that they had purchased poppy straw from Chaman Lal (petitioner). 7. By sending rukka to the Police Station, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. On finding sufficient material, Vijay Kumar was arrested. Vijay Kumar further disclosed his mobile number as 7743074095, mobile number of Gurpreet Singh as 7347641054 and that of Chaman Kumar as 8219775994, with further disclosure that they had purchased poppy straw from Chaman Lal (petitioner). 7. In the status report, it was disclosed by Vijay Kumar during his interrogation that he and Gurpeet Singh, residents of the same village, are having their houses nearby to each other and both are habitual of consuming poppy straw in Punjab, some truck driver had given them mobile number of the owner of Panasra dhaba in District Kullu, with reference that he can provide poppy straw to them, thereupon they contacted Chaman Lal on his mobile number and who asked them to know Panarsa whereupon on 15.5.2022, during evening they started from Panasra, in a car of Gurpreet Singh and for asking about road of Panarsa, they had called Chaman Lal for 7-8 times and on 16.4.2022, when they reached near Panarsa four lane, Chaman Lal came to receive them on the road and took them in his dhaba where they had taken tea and meal for providing ‘chura post’ amounting to Rs.35,000/- (17500/17500 rupees), in the denominations, 70 notes of rupees five hundred were given to Chaman Lal and Chaman Lal asked to came Deori bridge and he went ahead to them and again for asking the inquiry, they made calls to Chaman Lal, at a distance of 300 meters from Deori bridge near bushes at a secluded place Chaman Lal handed over two bags at about 10:30 p.m. which were loaded by them in dickey of car and both of them slept in car, it was further disclosed that number plate of vehicle was fake whereas number of the car was same, in the morning they started running towards journey, but intercepted by the police in the manner, as stated supra. 8. On obtaining CDR and CAF of concerned service Provider Company, it was found that Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal had numerous talks from their mobile phones on 16.4.2022 till 10:39 pm, they had various talks on 15.4.2022 at 5:58 pm. 8. On obtaining CDR and CAF of concerned service Provider Company, it was found that Vijay Kumar and Chaman Lal had numerous talks from their mobile phones on 16.4.2022 till 10:39 pm, they had various talks on 15.4.2022 at 5:58 pm. At that time, location of Chaman Lal was at Kota Dhar whereas at 6:50 am location of Vijay Kumar was at Ramdhan Tower in village Udhanwal Balachor Nawashehar and at 5:58 pm, Manish Kumar Tower in village Sanyarli in Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, they had talked on 15.4.2022 from 9:22 pm to 10:33 pm and at that time, location of Chaman Lal from 9:22 pm to 10:20 pm was within tower Kota Dhar and thereafter, at 10:27 pm within Tower Dalip Singh Sotodar and thereafter within Tower of Gulab Singh village Phalana, whereas Tower location of Vijay Kumar from 9:22 pm to 10:30 pm was within Tower Karan Singh Rupi Palace Mandi, Bimla Devi Tower village Jawani Ropa, Ved Parkash Tower in village Tanrarum Tehsil Aut, District Manali, Gulab Singh Tower in village Phalana District Kullu, Alam Chand Tower village Khamradha and lastly within Gulab Singh Tower in village Phalana. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and call details, whereas there is no recovery either of contraband or of amount alleged to have been paid by main accused Chaman Lal and source of contraband, as claimed by the prosecution that was a Nepali person, has not been placed on record and there is no detail of that Nepali person. 10. On 16.4.2022, during mobile talks, location of Chaman Lal was within Tower Kota Dhar, Gulab Singh, Alam Chand, Narender Bhardwaj situated in District Kullu, whereas Tower location of petitioner at 10:10 a.m, was within Gulab Singh Tower and 12:09 p.m within Tower Tilak Raj village Cholohoti in District Mandi, Dalip Singh tower in District Mandi and Tilak Raj Tower in District Mandi. Lastly, their location from 9:23 p.m. to 10:39 p.m was in Tower Gulab Singh, Narender Bhardwaj and Ranjeet Singh. situated in District Kullu and this Tower location was identical to Tower location of Chaman Lal. 11. Lastly, their location from 9:23 p.m. to 10:39 p.m was in Tower Gulab Singh, Narender Bhardwaj and Ranjeet Singh. situated in District Kullu and this Tower location was identical to Tower location of Chaman Lal. 11. In view of the aforesaid material on record, it has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that in present case, Chaman Lal has not been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement and call details record, but also further disclosure of Tower location of other accused and Chaman Lal, substantiated disclosure statement of co-accused regarding their movement, meeting with petitioner and the same location at the time of alleged supply of contraband by Chaman Lal to Vijay Kumar and Gurpreet Singh. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that at the time of his arrest Chaman Lal had disclosed that he had paid some money to Nepali person whose name and address was not known to him, but he was having acquaintance, as the said Nepali used to visit his dhaba occasionally and other amount has been spent by Chaman Lal and, therefore, for having no details of Nepali and for no recovery of any amount from the petitioner cannot be made basis for enlarging petitioner on bail. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring judgment of a three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, passed on 19.07.2022, in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, has contended that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that judgment of Mohit Aggarwal’s case is not applicable in the present case, as no recovery in furtherance of disclosure statement of co-accused is there whereas learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is sufficient material in addition to disclosure statement and call details record to indicate that petitioner is involved in commission of offence. 15. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that there is no other relation between petitioner and main accused and there is no explanation for having eight calls on 15.4.2022 and 14 calls on 16.4.2022 except as stated in disclosure statement made by co-accused and the said fact coupled with Tower location, prosecution case is substantiated and thus, petitioner is not entitled for bail. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred pronouncement of this Court in Cr. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred pronouncement of this Court in Cr. MP (M) No.586 of 2022 titled Mohan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 3rd June, 2022, whereas accused for having been found charas 1.07 kgs was enlarged on bail on the ground that recovered contraband was slightly more than the minimum commercial quantity provided, under the Act. 17. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in Mohan Singh’s case, it is not only the quantity, but the period of detention it was one year and ten months was also a consideration coupled with the quantity of contraband whereas in the present case, petitioner has been arrested on 21.4.2022 i.e. about only seven months ago and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim parity of Mohan Singh’s case (supra.). 18. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in case this Court does not find appropriate to enlarge on bail, at this stage, he may be granted liberty to approach the Court again. 19. Needless to say that an accused has a right to file successive bail application, as permissible under law, and no liberty of this Court is necessary for filing such bail application either in this Court or in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge having jurisdiction to decide the same. 20. Without commenting upon merits of rival contentions of the parties, considering the material placed before me and also parameters and factors necessary to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, therefore, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 21. Observations made hereinbefore shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.