Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 90 (HP)

Neena Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Applicant Neena Devi has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 180 of 2024, dated 6.11.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), registered with Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that she is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case, as she has no concern whatsoever, with the offence, for which, she has been arrested, by the police. 3. The applicant has tried her luck by moving similar bail application bearing No. 95-K/XXII/2024, before the learned Special Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. However, the same was dismissed, on 18.12.2024. 4. On the basis of above facts, Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 5. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 6. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that SI Gurdev Singh, I.O., Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. has submitted the ruqua to Police Station, Ruqua, disclosing therein that he alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty, on 6.11.2024 and at about 9:30 a.m., when, they were present at a place known as ‘Voddad Valla’ then, they received a secret information regarding indulgence of Pawan Kumar, S/o Surinder Kumar and his wife Neena Devi (applicant), in the business of selling and purchasing chitta in their house. As per the secret information, in case, the said house of above two persons is searched, then, large quantity of heroin/chitta could be recovered. Said information was found to be authentic and reliable. 6.1 According to the I.O., due to paucity of time, it was not possible for him to obtain search warrant, as such, he has complied with the provisions of Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter house of the applicant was searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. 6.2 In the house of applicant, applicant and her husband were found. Both of them were apprised about the secret information, which, the I.O. had received. Thereafter house of the applicant was searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. 6.2 In the house of applicant, applicant and her husband were found. Both of them were apprised about the secret information, which, the I.O. had received. On searching the house, 26.10 grams chitta was found. Thereafter, other codal formalities were completed. Apart from this, 241.200 grams gold jewellery and 1207 grams silver jewellery, alongwith currency worth Rs. 44580/-was also found. 6.3 All the above articles were taken into possession and the applicant and her husband were arrested. Later on, involvement of one Deepak, R/o Hoshiarpur, Punjab was also found. 6.4 According to the Police, against the applicant, FIR No. 189 of 2020, dated 2.10.2020, under Section 21 of the ND & PS Act is stated to have been registered, with Police Station, Kangra, H.P. In the said case, the contraband, allegedly recovered, was 6.10 grams of heroin. However, against the husband of the applicant, as per the status report, 5 cases are stated to have been registered, under the provisions of NDPS Act. 6.5 Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be complete and charge-sheet has been filed, in the competent Court of law. 6.6 Lastly, prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is a clever person, who, alongwith her husband, is indulged in smuggling of heroin and they are affecting the youth of the area. 6.7 Lastly, it has also been pleaded in the status report that due to act of applicant and her husband, there is resentment in the society. 6.8 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 7. Heard. 8. Contraband, allegedly recovered, in the present case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be complete. Meaning thereby, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the Police. 10. The legislature, in its wisdom, has added the proviso to Section 480(ii) of BNSS, according to which, the Court may release a person on bail, if such person is a child or is a woman or is sick or infirm. 11. Chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. 10. The legislature, in its wisdom, has added the proviso to Section 480(ii) of BNSS, according to which, the Court may release a person on bail, if such person is a child or is a woman or is sick or infirm. 11. Chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 12. So far as the apprehensions, as expressed by the Police in the status report are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed. 13. Registration of other case, against the applicant is too short to take away the presumption of innocense from the applicant, as conviction in the said case has ot been recorded by the competent Court of law. 14. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 15. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in case FIR No. 180 of 2024, dated 6.11.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered with Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 16. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) She shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application; b) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) She shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, d) She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 17. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. 18. 17. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. 18. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 19. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai, District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 20. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai, District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra. The Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai, District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P., is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.