Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 184 (HP)

Ram Lal v. State of H. P.

2025-02-04

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 vide FIR No. 174 of 2023, dated 05.12.2023, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act). As per the prosecution, the police team recovered 741 grams of charas from a Tempo bearing registration No. PB08AR-7839 (sic), which the petitioner was driving. The quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the petitioner's case. The investigation is complete and the challan has been filed before the competent Court of law. The trial of the case is likely to take sufficient time. Only 3-4 witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner has already spent more than 13 months in custody. Some cases were registered against the petitioner but those cases have been decided. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 04.12.2023 when they intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP49-2097, which the petitioner was driving. The police recovered 741 grams of charas from the Tempo. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL and as per the report of analysis, the same was confirmed to be charas. FIR No.94 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012 was registered against the petitioner in the Police Station for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 of the Excise Act in which a fine of Rs.5200/- was imposed. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 55 of 2016, dated 14.06.2016 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC are pending before the Court against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 419 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 58 of 2017 dated 22.04.2017 are pending before the Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 419 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 58 of 2017 dated 22.04.2017 are pending before the Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act against the petitioner. The police submitted the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge-I, Una. The petitioner is in custody. Four witnesses have been examined out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and the matter is now listed on 25.04.2025 for the examination of the prosecution witnesses. 3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 13 months. The prosecution has only examined four witnesses out of 20 witnesses cited by it. The matter is now listed for prosecution evidence on 25.04.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime involving the possession of narcotics, which is adversely affecting society at large. Therefore, he prayed that the present application 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 Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271, wherein it was observed as under: - “ 19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role ascribed to the accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with the evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk, et al. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 , apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed: “ 26. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 , apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed: “ 26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, how the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118 . 27. It is equally well settled that bail, once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the Superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a Superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) (2022), 15 SCR 211 decided by a three-judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must be weighed with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words: “24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [ Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail, but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 , speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the Court, while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting (anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned: “ 7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus: ‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’ (emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The police asserted that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 55 of 2016, dated 14.6.2016 is still pending against the petitioner. This is incorrect. A copy of the judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. in case registration No. 527/19/16 pertaining to FIR No. 55 of 2016, dated 14.6.2016 shows that the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rs.500/- for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. Hence, the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 55/16 have been terminated. 10. It was mentioned that the petitioner was convicted in the proceeding arising out of the FIR No. 419 of 2003. A copy of the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2010 shows that the petitioner was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 16.4.2014. Hence, the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 419 of 2003 have also been terminated. 11. It was mentioned that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 58 of 2017 are pending before the competent Court. This is also not correct. Hence, the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 419 of 2003 have also been terminated. 11. It was mentioned that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 58 of 2017 are pending before the competent Court. This is also not correct. A copy of the judgment dated 2.1.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. shows that the petitioner was acquitted of the commission of the charged offence. Hence, no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner as of today. 12. The petitioner was found in possession of 741 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. 13. The petitioner has been in custody since 5.12.2023. The status report shows that the prosecution has cited 20 witnesses out of whom only four witnesses have been examined so far. The matter is now listed for the prosecution evidence on 25.4.2025. The petitioner cannot be kept indefinitely behind the bars waiting for the outcome of the trial pending against him. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner can abscond or he can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The status report does not show that the petitioner had misused the concession of bail granted to him in earlier cases, therefore, the apprehension of the prosecution is without any basis. Moreover, the apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and the bail cannot be denied based on the apprehensions alone. 15. Keeping in view the nature of the case, the allegations made against the petitioner, and the quantity of charas stated to have been recovered from the petitioner, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order will be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Una at Bangarh and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.