HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vipin Singh – Appellant
versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MPM No.176 of 2024
Decided on 29.2.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – FIR registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – Grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of matter being dealt with by Court and may vary from case to case – Failure to mention relevant evidence does not entitle a person to file subsequent bail application without change in circumstances – In present case, no change in circumstances has been pleaded and circumstances asserted in application executed at the time of decision of earlier bail application – Bail application cannot be allowed on this short ground alone – Bail petition dismissed.(Paras 8, 13, 15 and 19)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No.15 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 8.03.2023 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide FIR No.15 of 2023. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The Police recovered 2.603 grams of charas from the co-accused and the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The version of the Police is highly improbable. The petitioner was not instrumental in the arrangement of the contraband in question nor had he any communication pertaining to the sale, purchase and transportation of the contraband. The petitioner is a respectable person in the society and the investigation is silent regarding the role attributed to the petitioner. The SIM was not issued in the name of the petitioner and it was found to be registered in the name of some other person. The WhatsApp call detail record shows that the main accused —Sanju was in touch with Vicky Bhai from Jaipur and the bail petitioner is not connected to the present case. The petitioner is a shopkeeper and had some bank transactions in February because Sanjay had purchased some hardware items from the petitioner’s shop. There is no link evidence and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner had committed any offence. The petition has been filed on fresh grounds as the supportive evidence was not filed during the previous petition; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed.
3. The State has filed reply asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 02.03.2023. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration no. HP01K-7535. They searched the vehicle and recovered 2 kg 603 grams of Charas during the search. The driver of the vehicle revealed his name as Sanju. The police arrested the driver. Sanju made a disclosure statement that the Charas were given to him by one Vipin Singh (present petitioner). He could identify the place where the Charas was handed over. The police checked the mobile phone of Sanju and found that the petitioner had talked to Sanju six times. He had also paid the money to the petitioner. Sanju identified the place where Charas was handed over to him. As per the report of the analysis, the substance was found to be Charas having 30.14% w/w resin in it. Sonu Devi made a statement that she had handed over one SIM to Sanju. Kirna Devi made a statement she had handed over a SIM to the petitioner. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the SIM was not issued in the name of the petitioner and the money was paid by the main accused to the petitioner for the items purchased by him from the shop of the petitioner, which is duly supported by the bill issued by
the petitioner. These documents could not be produced during the earlier bail petition;
therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. A commercial quantity of charas was recovered from the co-accused and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at
Bail – Failure to mention relevant evidence does not entitle a person to file subsequent bail application without change in circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications to be considered, as well as the importance of establishing a substa....
Successive bail applications require material change in circumstances; no review of prior rejections. Belated Article 22(1) non-communication plea after multiple bail denials and red-handed arrest re....
Financial transactions and call records alone are insufficient to justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act when no substantial evidence connects the accused to the crime.
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
Bail applications must disclose prior criminal history, with courts assessing the risk of re-offending and societal safety when considering bail requests.
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.