Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Sanjeev Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himahcal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc Petition (Main) No. 1087 of 2021
Decided On : 18-08-2021
N.K. Thakur, Advocate, Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate, R.P. Singh, Advocate, Narender Thakur, Advocate
The presumption of innocence, principles of bail, and the need for a humane attitude in dealing with bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21, Section 29 - [Section 21, Section 29] - The court discussed the recovery of contraband from the petitioner's vehicle, the absence of independent witnesses, the petitioner's drug addiction, and the need for rehabilitation. The court also referenced the principles of bail, presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane attitude in dealing with bail applications. The court ultimately granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the recovery of contraband from his vehicle. The state opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offense and the petitioner's drug addiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of contraband from the petitioner's vehicle was established, but noted the absence of independent witnesses and the petitioner's lack of prior criminal record. The court emphasized the petitioner's need for rehabilitation and the principles of bail, ultimately granting bail with stringent conditions.
Issues: Recovery of contraband, gravity of the offense, petitioner's drug addiction, presumption of innocence, and the need for rehabilitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of contraband, absence of independent witnesses, petitioner's drug addiction, principles of bail, presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane attitude in dealing with bail applications.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, emphasizing the need for rehabilitation and the presumption of innocence.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner, namely Sanjeev Kumar, who is behind the bars since 2.6.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.77 of 2021, dated 2.06.2021, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act').
2. Status report filed by the respondent-State on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating agency, reveals that on 2.6.2021, police after having received secret information, intercepted vehicle bearing registration No.HP-92-0951 at Chambaghat being driven by present bail petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar and allegedly recovered 12.70 grams heroin from the dash board of the vehicle in question. At the time of aforesaid recovery, one person apart from present bail petitioner namely, Aman Prashar was also sitting in the jeep. Since both the occupants of the vehicle failed to render proper explanation qua the possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after completion of the necessary codal formalities lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, against them and since then they are behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail.
3. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While referring to the status report, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since petitioner alongwith other co-accused Raman Prashar purchased intermediate quantity of contraband from some unknown person at Kalka, it cannot be said that he is not indulging in the illegal trade of narcotics. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since bail petitioner is drug addict, there is every likelihood of his being indulged in the activities again in case he is ordered to be enlarged on bail and as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected outrightly.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that on 2.6.2021, 12.70 grams of Heroin came to be recovered from the dash board of the vehicle being driven by the present bail petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated. However, having taken note of the fact that aforesaid quantity of contraband never came to be recovered in the presence of independent witnesses coupled with the fact that no case in past stands registered against the present bail petitioner, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner otherwise deserves to be considered. Though, this Court has no reason to differ with the submissions made on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner has committed offence having adverse impact on the society, but same time Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner, if not rehabilitated at first opportunity would get involved more deeper in this activity. Since bail petitioner is drug addict and in past no case stands registered against him, it would be appropriate in case he is taken to some rehabilitation centre for treatment, so that as soon as possible, he is brought back to the main stream. Otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars because that would definitely not help him in getting rid of bad habit, rather it would be in his best interest that he is provided treatment immediately. Otherwise also, quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle being dr
