SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(HP) 150

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
MANBHARI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE Cr.M.P - Respondent
Cr. M.P (M) Nos. 610 to 622 of 2000
Decided On : 06/30/2000

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the Bail:Petitioners Mr. R.M. Bisht, Asstt. A.G. for the state.

The court emphasized the importance of fair and fearless investigation of a case of serious nature and the larger public interest in deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20/27-A/29/32 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The case involved 13 applications under section 438 of the code of criminal Procedure arising from a case FIR No.257/2K for the offences punishable under Sections 20/ 27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicants sought pre-arrest bail on the plea that the allegations made against them in the First Information Report are false and they have nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband from the house of Datti Ram.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the main accused fled away due to interference, if not active assistance of the persons including the applicants who were present at the spot, and therefore, rejected all the applications for anticipatory bail.

Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the applicability of Section 37 of the Drugs Act, which limits the scope of applicability of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure regarding grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the provisions for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not to be mechanically applied and must consider the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and status of accused with reference to victim and witnesses, the likelihood of accused fleeing from Justice, possibility of accused tampering with the witnesses, and larger interest of the public, investigation, and the state.

Final Decision: The court rejected all the applications for anticipatory bail, stating that it is not a fit case where discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised in favor of the applicants-petitioners.

JUDGMENT

: Kuldip Chand Sood, J. : - All these 13 applications under section 438 of the code of criminal Procedure are being disposed of by this common order as all of them arise from a case FIR No.257/2Kforthe offences punishable under Sections 20/ 27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Drugs Act) registered with the Police Station, Kullu, on 1.6.2000. The applicants are resident of Village Tosh, P.O. Barshiani, Tehsil and District Kullu (H.P).

2. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the applicants and prosecution, the facts as disclosed in the First information Report may be noticed in brief:

3. On the early morning of 1st June, 2000, ASI Kanwar Singh, Incharge, Police Manikaran, received a secret information that Datti Ram s/o Alam Chand r/o Village Tosh deals in the sale of Charas at large scale and on immediate raid charas can be recovered from his house. ASI Kanwar Singh reduced the information received by him in writing, constituted a raiding party including therein local Vice President of the Panchayat Khushal Chand and Numberdar Tej Ram. A copy of the information so recorded was sent to Dy. S.P. Head Quarter, who, at the relevant time was present at Manikaran itself. The raiding party reached in village Tosh included local inhabitant Chanderkant in the raiding party and went to the house of Datti Ram. His house was searched, in the presence of the witnesses, and 2 kg 150 grams of charas was recovered. Formalities were completed. In the meanwhile, applicant Luddar Chand, his wife Manbhari and mother Kali Devi come to the house of Datti Ram and Manbhari started snatching the sealed parcel of Charas. On which all the sealed parcels and other relevant papers were put in a bag. A camera was taken out so that photographs could be taken. In the meanwhile, several women and men of the village gathered in the varandah of the house of Datti Ram and wanted to snatch the bag. All of them wanted that case against Datti Ram should not be registered. The police officials including Dy. S.P. tried to pacify the crowd but without any success. All the women and men of the village gathered around the house of Datti Ram and the women in the Varandah started snatching the bag. In this sensitive situation, the bag was handed over to constable Darshan Singh, but three of the applicants, namely, Mohari s/o Sindhu, Sher Singh s/o Sindhu and Duni Chand snatched the bag from the aforesaid Constable Darshan Singh and fled away alongwith bag, which contained Charas recovered from the house of Datti Ram. The First Information Report names the applicant Puran Chand, Des Raj, Amar Nath, Dehri Devi, Sita Devi, Kubja Devi, the persons who were gathered in the varandah. It is the further case of the police that all these persons made Datti Ram to fled away and have now screened him. It is in this background the applicants seek pre-arrest bail on the plea that the allegations made against them in the First Information Report are false and they have nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband from the house of Datti Ram. It is further case of the applicants that no case on the face of the First Information Report is made out under Section 20/27-A/ 29 and 32 of the Drugs Act against the applicants. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no case against any of the applicants under any provision of the Drugs Act is made out and at the most the applicants are liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Indian Penal Code for having obstructed the police in discharge of its duties.

4. It may be noticed that grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of code of Criminal Procedure is subject to Section 37 of the Drugs Act which provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, no person shall be released on bail unless the conditions as stipulated under sub-clause(ii) of clause(b) of Section (1) of Sectio







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top