Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 875 (HP)

Karan Thakur v. State of H. P.

2022-12-26

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Case FIR No.204 of 2022, dated 12.10.2022, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is in police custody since 12.10.2022. 2. The case of the police is that a secret information was received during the intervening night of 11.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 to the effect that three persons named Karan Thakur, Yashpal Thakur and Vipul Verma were travelling in vehicle No. HP-63A-5557 (Alto K-10) towards Shimla from Dharampur via Barog and were indulging in trade of heroin/Chitta. Report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared and nakka was laid. At about 11.40 p.m., vehicle No. HP-63-A-5557 was apprehended near Panch Parmeshwar temple, Deonghat, Solan. The vehicle was found to be occupied by three persons including the petitioner. The names of other two persons were Vipul Verma and Yash Pal Thakur. On search of the vehicle 9.08 grams of heroin/Chitta was recovered from the dashboard of the vehicle. Petitioner was arrested along with other co-accused. 3. As per status report submitted on behalf of respondents, during investigation the petitioner and other co-accused had disclosed that they were addicted to drug abuse. Status report also reveals that accused Vipul Thakur was involved in three other cases under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Accused Yash Pal was involved in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 304 of the IPC and petitioner was involved in a case under Section 279 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The investigation is stated to be complete and challan stands filed in the Court on 24.11.2022. 4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any crime. It has further been submitted that the vehicle belonged to accused Vipul Verma and petitioner was not aware about the contraband being carried in the vehicle. No other case under NDPS Act is stated to be pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be aged about 25 years. It is contended that prolonged incarceration of petitioner shall seriously affect his career. 5. No other case under NDPS Act is stated to be pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be aged about 25 years. It is contended that prolonged incarceration of petitioner shall seriously affect his career. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 6. The quantity of heroin recovered from vehicle No. HP-63A-5557 is marginally higher than the small quantity. It being intermediate quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply. The small quantity of heroin as per notification issued by Central Government under NDPS Act is upto five grams and commercial quantity is above 250 grams. 7. The quantity involved in the case does not suggest its commercial use. As per respondent itself the petitioner and other co-accused had disclosed during investigation that they were addicted to drug abuse. It is evident from the record that co-accused Vipul Verma is about 23 years of age and Yash Pal is about 22 years of age, whereas petitioner himself is about 25 years. The menace of drug abuse is not unknown in the society especially during the recent years. In case the petitioner himself is victim of drug abuse, he requires medical attention and rehabilitation, and not the incarceration that too without conviction. 8. The involvement of petitioner in any other case under the NDPS Act is not shown. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that he has earlier been involved in similar activities. The aforesaid observations have been made only for the purpose of assessment as to the seriousness and gravity of allegations against the petitioner. 9. Challan in the case has already been presented in the Court. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule and the facts of the case in hand also do not warrant such incarceration of petitioner. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Petitioner is in need of immediate medical attention and rehabilitation, in case he is found to be victim of drug abuse. It is expected that his family members will come forward for providing required help to the petitioner. The fact that bail petition has been moved by none else than the father of the petitioner suggests that the family of petitioner is ready to take care of the petitioner. 9. It is expected that his family members will come forward for providing required help to the petitioner. The fact that bail petition has been moved by none else than the father of the petitioner suggests that the family of petitioner is ready to take care of the petitioner. 9. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office Thundan, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding and fleeing from the course of justice. It has not been alleged on behalf of respondent that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial of the case will be affected adversely. 10. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 204/2022, dated 12.10.2022, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. subject to his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction learned trial Court, however, subject to following conditions :- (i) That the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the express permission of the trial Court and; (iii) That the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing of the case and shall not delay the trial of the case. (iv) Any violation of the conditions of this bail order shall entail cancellation. 11. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only.