Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Rajinder - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 278 of 2020
Decided On : 24-04-2020
For the Appellant :Manoj Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Nand Lal, Additional Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of freedom, the presumption of innocence, and the discretion of the judge in granting bail, emphasizing the need to balance competing factors and consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused's behavior, and the likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Headnote:
BAIL - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 - The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, emphasizing the importance of freedom of an individual, the presumption of innocence, and the discretion of the judge in granting bail. The court also highlighted the factors to be considered while deciding on bail applications, such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused's behavior, and the likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking bail in a case registered under Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner was arrested for allegedly being in possession of charas, and the prosecution contended that there was sufficient evidence to establish his guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged recovery of contraband was made from the car occupied by the co-accused, and there was no evidence of the petitioner's prior connection with the co-accused or the person from whom the contraband was allegedly purchased. The court emphasized the importance of freedom and the presumption of innocence, stating that the guilt of the petitioner is yet to be proved.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged possession of contraband, the petitioner's connection with the co-accused, and the factors to be considered in granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation and the accused's behavior.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of freedom, presumption of innocence, and the discretion of the judge in granting bail. The court emphasized the need to balance competing factors and consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused's behavior, and the likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, subject to certain conditions, highlighting that the observations made should not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the application alone.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of bail petitioner namely; Rajinder Thapan, who is behind bars since 12.02.2020, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 10/2020, dated 13.2.2020, registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Status report in terms of order dated 11.03.2020 is already on record.
3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that on 20.03.2020, status report was filed by Investigating Officer in terms of order dated 11.03.2020, but on that day matter came to be adjourned for 17.04.2020 on the request having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Since on 17.04.2020, matter could not be listed before this Court on account of lock down, present case has been taken up for hearing today through video conferencing on the request having been made by learned counsel representing the petitioner.
4. Mr. Nand Lal, learned Additional Advocate General states that he does not intend to file any fresh status report because complete details with regard to the case at hand stands furnished in the previous status report filed on 20.03.2020.
5. Status report made available to this Court suggests that on 12.02.2020 vehicle bearing No. HR-06AC-5183 came to be intercepted by police party present at Jhamaradi Barrier, District Shimla. Police party having noticed the conduct of occupants of the car got suspicious and accordingly checked the vehicle in question and allegedly recovered 800 grams of charas hidden below the left front side seat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record on behalf of the occupants of the car qua the contraband being smuggled by them, police officials present on the spot after completion of necessary codal formalities registered the FIR as detailed hereinabove against the petitioner and other co-accused namely; Mukesh Chugh and Vinod Gujjar residents of State of Haryana, under Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 of the Act on 12.02.2020 and since then they all are behind bars.
6. Shri Nand Lal, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly stating that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, contends that bare perusal of evidence available on record clearly reveals that on the date of alleged incident accused alongwith other co-accused was caught red handed carrying huge quantity of contraband i.e. charas. Mr. Thakur further contends that mere non-association of independent witness at the time of alleged recovery cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially when it stands duly established from the record that on the date of alleged incident 800 grams of charas was recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner and other co-accused in the presence of police officials, who otherwise have no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the petitioner as well as other co-accused.
7. Mr. Thakur further contends that though quantity allegedly recovered from the petitioner is not commercial but keeping in view the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and, as such, prayer having been made by him for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Lastly, Mr. Thakur contends that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice and he being local resident of area may influence the witnesses and investigation and as such his prayer may not be accepted.
8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident police party intercepted car bearing No. HR-06AC-5183 being owned and driven by co-accused Mukesh Chugh, resi
