IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SURINDER SINGH, J.
Ram Lal @ Ram Avtar - Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent.
Cr.MMO No.4023 of 2013
Decided on: August 2, 2013
Bail Conditions - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - Section 437, Section 440, Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of narcotic drugs and challenged the bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge as unreasonable and excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the philosophy of bail, the principles of bail in non-bailable offences, and the discretion of the Magistrate in imposing bail conditions. It found the requirement of local sureties and the excessive bond amount to be unreasonable and reduced the bond amount and modified the bail conditions.
Issues: Unreasonable and excessive bail conditions, requirement of local sureties, discretion of the Magistrate in imposing bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail conditions should be reasonable and commensurate with the offence, and the requirement of local sureties and excessive bond amount were not justified. It emphasized the discretion of the Magistrate in imposing bail conditions and the protection of citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The impugned order of bail was modified to reduce the bond amount and remove the requirement of local sureties.
Surinder Singh, J :
The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.22 of 2013, registered in Police Station Manali, District Kullu, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short “the Act”, for allegedly keeping in his possession 354 grams of Charas and having intermediate quantity of contraband.
2. Vide order dated 1.7.2013, passed in bail application No.192 of 2013, learned Sessions Judge, Kullu while enlarging him on bail inter-alia imposed the condition of furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two local sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kullu.
3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by both these conditions being unreasonable and excessive. For that he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.MMO No.11 of 2009] decided on 18.2.2009, whereby the requirement of local surety held not justified.
4. In fact, the law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice. The concept of bail emerges from conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence in favour of alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.
5. The allegation against the accused in this case constitutes a non-bailable offence under the Act. In a case of non-commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 is not attracted, but however, the general principles of bail apply.
6. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short “the Code” makes a provision when a bail can be taken in a non-bailable offence. The usual practice of refusing bail can be departed from, on grounds enumerated in sub-Section (1) of the Section provided which again is discretionary, the Court is not to act automatically for granting bail on finding that any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso exists, but further take into account inter-alia other relevant considerations like turning up the accused during trial. Thus, the Magistrate may impose any such conditions which the Court may consider necessary to a suspected accused of the offences which is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to seven years or more or an offence under Chapter VI, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or abetment of, or conspiracy to ensure the attendance of the accused and further that such person shall not commit any such offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected or also otherwise in the interest of justice.
7. The petitioner in this case is accused of keeping in possession narcotic. The menace of drug is a social value. Generally and blindly the Special Judge who is a Magistrate under the Act is not expected to blindly release a drug peddler or the person who are indulged in the business of narcotics, unless he assures himself that the accused shall not commit offence similar to the offence and that he shall face the trial provided the accused also does not have any criminal history.
8. Once, a Magistrate decides to grant the bail applying his judicial mind, then any unreasonable condition, which makes difficult, the enlargement of the petitioner on bail thereby making the provisions of bail nugatory, should be avoided. Therefore, the bail-bond should be of a reasonable amount commensurate to the punishment provided for the offence. Further the Magistrate may also impose any other condition to which he thinks it necessary in the interest of justice and the society, firstly whether the accused would take up the trial without hampering it and secondly, whether he would subject himself to the verdict of the Court, other facts like the serious nature of the crime and the gravity of the circumstances under which such an offence is alleged to
AI
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.