Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Randhir Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 961 of 2020
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Govind Korla, Advocate, Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate, Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from previous judgments to justify the grant of bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
Headnote:
BAIL - NDPS Act - Section 21, Section 22 - [21, 22, 201, 439, 37, 437-A, 446, 446-A] - The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) including the definitions of commercial quantity and small quantity, the minimum and maximum sentences, and the conditions for granting bail under the Act. The court also referred to legal principles from previous judgments to justify the grant of bail in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act for possessing heroin. The police arrested the petitioner for jointly possessing 27.65 grams of heroin with another accused. The petitioner had a history of criminal cases under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quantity of substance seized was less than the commercial quantity, and therefore, the bail application was treated under regular statutes. The court considered the nature of the allegations and the petitioner's previous criminal history to grant bail.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's eligibility for bail under the NDPS Act, considering the quantity of the seized substance and the petitioner's criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from previous judgments to justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of the victim, accused, society, and state. The court also highlighted the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, based on the nature of the allegations, the quantity of the seized substance, and the petitioner's previous criminal history.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - 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 (CrPC), 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, HP, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offenses.
3. Earlier, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before, learned Special Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, HP. However, vide order dated 2.11.2019, the Court had dismissed the same as withdrawn.
4. I have read the status report(s) 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, Distt. Kangra, HP, 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 CrPC 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 responsibili
