IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
SANDEEP - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1608 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2019
NDPS Act - Bail - Section 439 - 20, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which disentitles a person accused of an offence involving a commercial quantity of contraband from availing bail. The court also referred to the definitions of opium derivative, manufactured drug, and cannabis (hemp) under the NDPS Act, and the principles established in E. Michalraj Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161, Harjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 4 SCC 441, and State Vs. Mahboob Khan, 2013 3 HinduLR 1834 (FB). The court emphasized the importance of considering the entire mass of recovered contraband, particularly in the case of charas, and the binding nature of former decisions of larger benches.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the alleged recovery of 2.689 kilograms of charas from his possession. The prosecution claimed that the recovery was made based on reliable information received by the police. The petitioner argued that even if the prosecution's story was believed, the recovered charas was a small quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of a large quantity of charas from the petitioner's possession disentitled him from availing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering the entire mass of recovered contraband, particularly in the case of charas, and the binding nature of former decisions of larger benches. The court also highlighted the principles established in E. Michalraj Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161, Harjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 4 SCC 441, and State Vs. Mahboob Khan, 2013 3 HinduLR 1834 (FB).
Issues: The issues included the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the determination of the quantity of recovered charas, and the impact of former decisions of larger benches on the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the entire mass of recovered contraband, particularly in the case of charas, and the binding nature of former decisions of larger benches. The court also highlighted the principles established in E. Michalraj Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161, Harjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 4 SCC 441, and State Vs. Mahboob Khan, 2013 3 HinduLR 1834 (FB).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for bail, citing the recovery of a large quantity of charas from his possession, which disentitled him from availing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the entire mass of recovered contraband, particularly in the case of charas, and the binding nature of former decisions of larger benches.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Present petition has been filed seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 27/16, dated 24.3.2016 under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as NDPS Act in short) registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District H.P.. The petitioner is in custody since 24.3.2016 for alleged recovery of 2.689 kilograms charas from his conscious possession in Room No. 101, in Hotel Paradise, Sector-3, Parwanoo at 11:43 A.M. on 24.3.2016.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 24.3.2016 at about 11:30 A.M. Inspector Minakshi, SHO, Police Station Parwanoo had received information on her mobile phone that a person, namely, Sandeep Kumar involved in business of narcotic drugs, is staying in room No. 101 of Hotel Paradise, Sector-3, Parwanoo. Informant had also given identity of the person along with further details of his wearing and tattoos on his hand. The information was reliable and therefore, reasons to believe were reduced into writing under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act. As there was possibility of disappearance of the accused as well the contraband during the process of obtaining search warrant on account of distance from the Court, therefore, information was sent to SDPO Parwanoo and in the meanwhile, SHO Meenakshi Shah along with Police party raided the hotel Paradise and before searching room No.101, she had associated Ankit Sharma, Hotel Service Boy and Arvind Jetily owner of the hotel by joining them in the raiding party.
3. On the basis of information, room No 101 was knocked and on opening of the door, four persons, consuming liquor were found there and the person having appearance and wearing in consonance with the information received, was also there, who on inquiry had disclosed his name and address as familiar to identity of petitioner. Other three persons, namely, Ravinder Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Ved Parkash were also present there. Personal search of these three persons were conducted after complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, but nothing incriminatory was found from their person.
4. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar was sitting on double bed and one yellow-pink bag with logo AG Basmoti rice having zip to close it was also with him. On searching this bag, one small pink purse bearing logo of Bansal Jeweler was found in it, but no illicit article was found therein. However, in another bag, black sticks of some material were found, which after smelling, were identified as charas. The said contraband was weighed in the electronic balance brought with investigating kit and it was found to be 2.689 kilograms. The same was seized vide memo of seizure. Other investigating formalities including filling up of NCB forms in triplicate and sealing the recovered contraband were completed and thereafter accused persons were arrested. Since then they are in custody.
5. Plea for granting bail to the petitioner has been canvassed on the ground that even if prosecution story is believed in toto, then also contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, at the best, applying ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in E. Michalraj Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161, is a small quantity, as according to the chemical analysis report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, quantity of purified resin in the alleged recovered charas has been found to be 21.31% w/w, meaning thereby that alleged recovered charas is about 574 grams and therefore, rigors of Section 37 are not applicable in the present case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1505 of 2018 titled Sewak Ram Vs. State of H.P. decided on 22.11.2018, Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1267 of 2018 titled Surender Vs. State of H.P. decided on 5.11.2018, Cr.M.P. (M) No. 667 of 2018 titled as Suresh Kumar @ Shivam Sharma Vs. State of H.P. decided on 20.6.2018, Cr.M.P.(M)
Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttrakhand
Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another
Chaman Lal versus State of U.P. and another
Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another
Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another
E. Michalraj Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab
Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Harjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Hira Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of T.N.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan
Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra
Mattulal Versus Radhe Lal reported in
N.S. Giri Versus Corporation of City of Mangalore reported in
Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P.
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Prakash Kadam versus Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
Prashanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another
Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others
State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav
State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi
Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another
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.