Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 10 (HP)

Christopher Noble @ Kelechi v. State of H. P.

2023-01-04

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : [Satyen Vaidya, J.] 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No.302 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021, registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and has been roped in a false case. He has been kept behind the bars for last about one year without any fault on his part. The challan has been presented in the Court and no fruitful purpose shall be achieved by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed at the time of granting bail to the petitioner and will regularly attend the hearings during the trial. 3. On the other hand, the bail petition has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has no respect for the law. He is a foreign national and is residing in India for the last more than five years without valid documents. The instructions dated 24.11.2022 have also been placed on record, which contains the entire background of the petitioner and his past conduct. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. The instructions dated 24.11.2022 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu reveal that the petitioner was apprehended within jurisdiction of Police Station, Manali on 01.01.2016 without passport and visa. Case vide FIR No. 01/2016 was registered against him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short, “the Act”). He remained in custody during the trial. Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 14 of the Act vide judgment dated 28.7.2016 and was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him. Orders to deport the petitioner were also passed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu vide order dated 29.7.2016 issued under Section 3 (2) (E) of the Act directed the petitioner to be kept in restricted area of Police NGO Rest House, Kullu till the process for his deportation was not completed. On 5.8.2016, in violation of the restriction order, petitioner absconded from the premises of Police NGO Rest House, Kullu. 6. On 5.8.2016, in violation of the restriction order, petitioner absconded from the premises of Police NGO Rest House, Kullu. 6. On 18.9.2016, petitioner was again arrested in a case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 14 of the Act, vide FIR No.181 of 2016, dated 18.9.2016 registered at Police Station, Manali. He remained under trial and was acquitted by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu vide judgment dated 01.10.2021. The directions were again issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu to deport the petitioner to the country of his origin. Again a restriction order under Section 3 (2) (E) of the Act was issued on 7.10.2021, whereby the petitioner was directed to remain confined within the premises of Police, NGO Rest House, Kullu till the process of deportation was completed. Petitioner again violated the restriction order and absconded on 16.10.2021. 7. Another case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was registered against petitioner vide FIR No.302 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021 and presently the petitioner is in custody in the said case. 8. As per status report submitted by the respondent, challan has been presented against the petitioner and petitioner is an under-trial. 9. From the facts noticed above, there remains no doubt that petitioner is a person with doubtful antecedents. He has no respect for the law. The possibility of petitioner indulging in above noted activities intentionally to prolong his stay in India, cannot be ruled out. It cannot be assumed that petitioner, instead of preferring to be deported to the country of his origin, would opt to live in a foreign country, that too, in adverse circumstances. The fact that petitioner had been apprehended in a case under NDPS Act cannot be ignored, notwithstanding his acquittal in the case. Petitioner has not been adhering to the restriction orders issued against him time and again and each violation amounts to a fresh offence. 10. Keeping in view the past conduct and antecedents of petitioner releasing him on bail is likely to prove prejudicial to the trial pending against him. It may be difficult to procure his presence for the early disposal of trial. In any case the process for deportation of petitioner is underway and he will have to remain in confined precincts. 11. Keeping in view the past conduct and antecedents of petitioner releasing him on bail is likely to prove prejudicial to the trial pending against him. It may be difficult to procure his presence for the early disposal of trial. In any case the process for deportation of petitioner is underway and he will have to remain in confined precincts. 11. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and hence, the instant petition is dismissed. 12. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.