Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 82 (HP)

Ram Lal v. State of H. P.

2023-02-23

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 45 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act), at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2020 at about 4.00 p.m. police officials nabbed one Rajkumar and recovered 6 kg. 024 grams of charas from gunny bag carried by him. Case was registered and said Rajkumar was arrested. 3. On 26.05.2022, police arrested the petitioner with the allegations that he had sold the charas to Rajkumar. 4. Evidence to implicate the petitioner is the confessional statement allegedly made by Rajkumar. Help of CDRs is also being taken to prove the offence against the petitioner under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 5. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on the ground that his implication is false. There is no legal evidence against him. The confessional statement made by co­accused is of no avail. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no concern with Rajkumar and the allegations of he being in contact with Rajkumar telephonically are baseless. It is further contended that he is in custody for more than eight months. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Kutwa, P.O. Jaon, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report. 7. The contents of status report filed on behalf of the respondent reveal that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of information allegedly provided by co­accused and also CDRs in respect of calls allegedly exchanged between both co­accused. Further, petitioner is also stated to have made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereto he had disclosed the place where his co­accused had allegedly handed over the contraband to him. 8. The disclosure made by co­accused cannot be read against the petitioner. As per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 . 8. The disclosure made by co­accused cannot be read against the petitioner. As per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 . In State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022) 2 Scale 14 , the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold prima facie case against co­accused. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in his favour. The facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to infer reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not accused of offence alleged against him. Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act. There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail. 10. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Kutwa, P.O. Jaon, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P., and there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner may abscond or flee from the course of justice. 11. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.45 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, registered under Sections 20 & 29 of ND&PS, Act, at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:­ (i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial. 12. Any expression of opinion herein­above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.