Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 95 (HP)

Anshul, S/o Sh. Sukh Dev v. State of H. P.

2022-03-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2022
ORDER : The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 21/2022, dated 28.01.2022, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Aut, District Mandi, 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 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. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.01.2022, a police had laid a nakka to check the vehicles. Around 1:10 p.m., a Volvo Bus, bearing No. HR 38Z2000, came from the Mandi side, which was signaled to stop. The police associated persons namely Anuj and Mukesh Kumar, passengers of the said bus, as independent witnesses. While checking the luggages of the passengers of bus, when police reached near last seat, a person sitting there threw a packet away from him and put his jacket on the other seat. When police picked that packet up and checked the same, on the basis of experience, they found that it was containing chitta (heroin). On asking, the person disclosed his name as Anshul (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the police checked his jacket and found some more plastic packets containing chitta and Insulin Syringes. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 28 grams with packets. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and rukka was sent to police station for registration of FIR. Police registered a case under the relevant Sections of ND&PS Act and the petitioner was arrested. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, 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 State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a drug addict and kept the contraband for self consumption. He has further argued that the petitioner is only 22 years of age and if he is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, his future will be spoiled. He has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and as nothing remains to be recovered from him, he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, i.e. 22 years, the recovered quantity of the contraband, i.e., 28 grams (with packets), the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioner has kept the contraband for self consumption and moreover, the petitioner is a drug addict, not a drug peddler and needs proper medical treatment and counseling for quitting drugs. So considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 21/2022, dated 28.01.2022, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/( rupees fifty 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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.