Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 160 (HP)

Rajnish @ Bunty v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-10

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered vide FIR No. 10 of 2024, dated 18.01.2024, at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. As perthe prosecution, the police recovered 120 grams of Heroin from the petitioner. He has been in judicial custody for almost one year. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 9 th and 10 th January 2025 for recording prosecution evidence, however, few witnesses have been examined to date. The petitioner was falsely implicated and he has nothing to do with the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him.Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 18.01.2024, when the Inspector /SHO received information that the accused was transporting a huge quantity of heroin. The police completed codal formalities, intercepted the vehicle and searched it in the presence of the independent witnesses. He recovered two polythene pouches containing 120 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL for analysis. The petitioner was supplying heroin to the school and college going students. Four F.I.R. under the NDPS Act and six FIRs under various Sections of IPC have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner can indulge in similar offences in case of his release on bail. Challan was filed before the Court on 06.03.2024. Ten witnesses out of twenty-four have been examined and the matter is now listed on 09.01.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. 4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that that the petitioner is a supplier of heroin, which is affecting the younger generation adversely. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of he is released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the petitioner was apprehended with 120 grams of heroin in the presence of the independent witnesses. Hence, prima facie there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. 10. The status report further shows four cases under the NDPS Act and six cases under various Sections of IPC have been registered against the petitioner. The registration of cases under the NDPS Act prima facie supports the submission of Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State that the possibility of the petitioner committing a similar crime while on bail cannot be ruled out. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC:6091 and held after referring to various judgments that a judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of such offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. In the present case, the registration of the different FIRs against the petitioner shows that he is likely to commit a crime in case of his release on bail, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 11. It is submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, however, order sheets of the learned Trial Court have not been filed to support this submission, and it cannot be said the delay is attributable to the prosecution or the Court. The status report further shows that out of twenty four witnesses cited by the prosecution, ten witnesses have been examined and now the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence on 9 th /10 th January 2025. This shows that the trial is proceeding expeditiously. Hence, the submission of the petitioner that there is a delay in the conclusion of the trial is not acceptable. 12. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. This shows that the trial is proceeding expeditiously. Hence, the submission of the petitioner that there is a delay in the conclusion of the trial is not acceptable. 12. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.