Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Randhir Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 961 of 2020
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Govind Korla.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur.
The judgment establishes the principle that the grant of bail depends on a variety of circumstances, including the nature of the offense, the quantity of the substance involved, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Headnote:
BAIL - Under-trial Prisoner - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Section 22 - Section 201 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner, sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for jointly possessing 27.65 grams of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The police arrested the petitioner in FIR Number 111 of 2019, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the nature of the offense, the quantity of the substance involved, and the petitioner's criminal history. It considered the principles of bail and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Court found that the petitioner made out a case for bail and granted bail with stringent conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's eligibility for bail, the nature of the offense, and the imposition of stringent conditions to secure the petitioner's presence and prevent further offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court balanced the interests of the victim, accused, society, and state in granting bail. It considered the quantity of the substance seized, the petitioner's criminal history, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Court also emphasized the need for stringent conditions to prevent further offenses.
Final Decision: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the imposition of stringent conditions to secure the petitioner's presence and prevent further offenses.
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. An under-trial prisoner, who is in custody since 12.09.2019, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail, under Section 21 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (after now called “NDPS Act”) for jointly possessing 27.65 grams of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), with the other accused, who already stands released on bail.
2. The police arrested the petitioner, in FIR Number 111 of 2019, dated 12.9.2019, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offenses.
3. Earlier, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before, learned Special Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. However, vide order dated 2.11.2019, the Court had dismissed the same as withdrawn.
4. I have read the status reports and heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
FACTS:
5. The gist of the First Information Report and the status report is that on 12.9.2019, Police Party was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. to detect crime. At about 4.30 p.m. when the Police Party reached near the Gate of Ram Gopal Mandir, Damtal Bazar, then the police noticed two persons riding on motorcycle. On noticing the Police, the said persons reversed their motorcycle and drove it on the opposite direction. However, because the driver of the motorcycle was perplexed, he could not control the same, which fell down. On this, reasons to believe arose in the mind of the police officials that they might be having some contraband substance or some illegal articles. The driver told his name as Dalip Kumar and the other person told his name as Randhir Kumar (petitioner herein). After that the police associated two persons as independent witnesses and in their presence the police asked them for the reason they tried to run away and asked them to show the documents of the motorcycle. However, they were trying to avoid all the questions in the inquiry. This arose suspicion in the mind of the Investigating Officer and in the presence of the independent witnesses he opened the seat of the motorcycle and noticed one polythene packet. On opening the same, police recovered a substance which prima facie, appeared to be Heroin. The police tested the same with the help of drug detection kit, which detected positive for heroin. On weighing the same, it measured 9.56 grams. Police also found one another polythene pouch which had 24.29 grams of Heroin. However, when the Police were conducting the proceedings then petitioner Randhir Kumar suddenly took the contraband and threw it on the road. Police again tried to lift the substance from the road and was able to retrieve 18.9 grams of Heroin. Subsequently, the Police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the Cr.P.C. and arrested the petitioner.
PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY:
6. As per the counsel for the petitioner as well as the status report petitioner has a large number of criminal cases. He was convicted in two cases under the NDPS Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge Jullundhar, Punjab, which were in relation to FIR No. 230 of 2013, dated 28.8.2013 and FIR No. 2 of 2013, dated 1.1.2013, both registered at Police Station Phillaur, Jullandhar, Punjab. The accused was acquitted in two cases under the NDPS Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge Jallundhar, Punjab, which were in relation to FIR No. 215 of 2014, dated 27.7.2013 and FIR No. 51 of 2017, dated 14.3.2017. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that conditions may be put that in case the petitioner repeats the offence, this bail may be canceled.
SUBMISSIONS:
7. The learned counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he has nothing to do with the said allegations. He further states that petitioner has to shoulder responsibi
