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

2018 Supreme(HP) 889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
MANOJ KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1450 of 2017
Decided on : 09-01-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General

The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the discretion of the court in granting bail based on the severity of the accusation and the individual circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - 21, 29, 16-61-85 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, particularly focusing on the quantity of heroin recovered, the involvement of the accused in illegal trade, and the principles governing the grant of bail.

Fact of the Case:

The bail petitioner was arrested for allegedly possessing 6.01 grams of heroin. The petitioner claimed that the actual weight was 5.084 grams and argued that the rigours of Section 37 of the Act were not attracted. The petitioner also stated that the main source of the contraband had been arrested, and there was no evidence of his involvement in illegal trade or past convictions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the recovery of heroin from the petitioner was of intermediate quantity and that there was no evidence of his involvement in illegal trade with the main source. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over seven months, and the investigation was complete with the challan filed in court.

Issues: The issues revolved around the quantity of heroin recovered, the petitioner's alleged involvement in illegal trade, and the possibility of influencing prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of bail, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the need to balance the right to liberty with the interests of society. It also considered the severity of the accusation, the nature of evidence, and the likelihood of the petitioner appearing for trial.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, including personal bonds and regular attendance at the trial court. It warned of bail cancellation if the petitioner misused his liberty or violated the imposed conditions.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Bail petitioner namely Manoj Kumar, who is in custody since 9.8.2017, has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. PC, praying therein for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 237/17 dated 8.8.2017, under Sections 21, 29, 16-61-85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, registered at police station Haroli District Una, H. P.

2. Sequel to order dated 5. 12. 2017, ASI Parkash Chand, I. O. , P. S. Haroli, District Una, H. P. , has come present alongwith records. Record perused and returned. Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report, which has been prepared on the basis of record of investigating agency.

3. Perusal of report/record suggests that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of Sub-Inspector Ankush Dogra, who alleged that he after having received secrete information that the bail petitioner is indulged in illegal trade of psychotropic substance, apprehended him near Badoli Collage Gate. Allegedly, 6.01 grams of heroin came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner and accordingly, he was arrested on 9.8.2017, and since then he is in custody.

4. Mr. N. K. Thakur, learned Senior counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record as well status report, vehemently contended that 6. 01 grams of heroin was not recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather its actual weight is 5. 084 grams as has been reported by the FSL and as such, rigours of Section 37 of the Act, are not attracted to the present case. Mr. Thakur, further contended that investigation in the present case, is complete and challan stands filed in the competent court of law and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner in custody, who has already suffered for more than seven months. While referring to the records, learned Senior Advocate, contended that on the basis of information given by the bail petitioner that he had purchased the aforesaid heroin from one Nigerian namely Emeka P. Kanikwu, S/o Kanikwu R/o delter State Nigeria at present R/o WZ-4, G/F, Khasra No. 665, Nawada Village Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, police has already arrested the aforesaid person who is the main source of contraband in the case at hand. Mr. Thakur, further contended that contraband, if any, recovered from the aforesaid person, cannot be said to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the present bail petitioner because it is an admitted case of Investigating Agency that only 6. 01 grams of heroin was recovered from the bail petitioner on 8/9. 8. 2017. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that there is no evidence at present available on the file suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner purchased 6. 01 grams of heroin from the main source at Delhi for illegal trade and as such, present bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, contended that there is no material adduced on record by the Investigating Agency suggestive of the fact that petitioner was found involved in such like cases in past also and he was ever convicted by the courts of law.

5. Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing aforesaid prayer for grant of bail made on behalf of the bail petitioner contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he is not entitled to be released on bail, rather he needs to be dealt with very severely. Mr. Negi further contended that it stands duly proved on record that the bail petitioner had been purchasing the psychotropic substance from the source at Delhi, who subsequently, came to be arrested at the behest of the bail petitioner only. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that police had received secrete information that bail petitioner indulges in illegal trade of psychotropic




































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top