Back
: Himachal High Court Dismisses Bail Over NDPS Section 42
The has dismissed an application for filed by Dinesh Kumar, convicted under the , rejecting the argument that a police diary entry mentioning "" constituted requiring with Section 42 of the Act. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that the phrase merely denotes a or endeavor to obtain secret information, not specific intelligence about a particular offence.
Case Background: The Conviction and the Appeal
Dinesh Kumar was convicted by the on , in connection with FIR No. 12/2023 registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the at , District Kullu. Aggrieved by his conviction, he sought pending appeal before the High Court. The primary ground raised was that the police had prior information about the contraband but failed to comply with Section 42, making the prosecution case fatally flawed.
Arguments Presented: Alleged Procedural Violations
Learned counsel for Dinesh Kumar argued that GD Entry No. 008 dated
, recorded the purpose of the police party's departure as
"
of madak padarth,"
which he contended meant prior information about a narcotic offence. Additionally, it was submitted that Column No. 7 of the NCB Form was left blank, that the
regarding
was missing, and that the independent witness (PW-5 Smt. Utra Devi) had
, all of which should entitle the applicant to
.
The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General , countered these submissions, arguing that "" did not amount to specific information and that the procedural requirements had been substantially complied with.
Legal Analysis: The Court's Interpretation of ""
The High Court undertook a detailed linguistic and contextual analysis of the term "." It observed that the phrase, of Persian origin, means investigation, research, or the act of tracking and tracing—not a specific disclosure about a particular person, vehicle, or manner of transport. The Court clarified that for Section 42 to be triggered, there must be specific information that a named person or described individual is committing an offence with contraband in a particular manner.
The Bench noted that the GD entry clearly indicated the police were leaving the station for inquiry, investigation, and patrolling—to obtain clues or traces of possible narcotic activity—which is a general police function, not a case.
Key Observations
"Plea of the applicant that ' ' means prior information of the offence is misconceived. The word Suragh Barari...means investigation/research or the act of tracking and tracing. It is general search or endeavour to obtain secret information apprehending possibility of commission of offence at some place or area."
On the issue of the blank column in the NCB Form, the Court found that since the first investigating officer handed over the contraband to a second officer—who then produced it before the SHO for —there was no occasion to record the date and time of dispatch, and no opportunity was given to the witness to explain the blank.
Regarding the hostile witness, the Court observed:
"The fact that independent witness was declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case, the entire prosecution case does not shatter as on the basis of reliable, cogent and convincing evidence of Police Officials only, a person can be convicted."
The Court further noted that PW-5, though hostile, had corroborated the presence of the police, accused, and vehicles on the spot, and that no enmity with the police party had been established.
Court's Decision: Bail Plea Dismissed
Finding no on the grounds raised, the Division Bench concluded:
"In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, applicant/appellant is not entitled for and accordingly, the application is dismissed."
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not serve as precedent in collateral proceedings. The dismissal means Dinesh Kumar must continue serving his sentence pending the appeal's final hearing.
