IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Davinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CR.MP (M) No. 760 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2021
Narcotic Drugs - Bail - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - [21, 29] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, which deals with the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. The court highlighted the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, the general rule of bail, and the need to balance competing factors while exercising discretion. The judgment also referenced the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, emphasizing the need for a humane attitude and the object of bail to secure the attendance of the accused at trial.
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner was named in an FIR related to the delivery of prohibited drugs, based on financial transactions allegedly involving his wife and a co-accused. The prosecution attempted to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime, but there was no direct evidence of his complicity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no justification to conclude the complicity of the bail petitioner in the alleged offence, especially considering the lack of material to suggest financial transactions between the petitioner and the co-accused. It also emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need to avoid indefinite incarceration before guilt is proved.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged complicity of the bail petitioner in the delivery of prohibited drugs, the interpretation of Section 37 of the Act regarding bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, and the balancing of competing factors in exercising judicial discretion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of direct evidence connecting the bail petitioner with the alleged offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need to avoid indefinite incarceration before guilt is proved. It also considered the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding bail and the humane attitude required in such cases.
Final Decision: The bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to specific conditions, and the court clarified that any observations made should not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case.
ORDER
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral). - Bail petitioner, namely Davinder Kumar, who is behind the bars since 19.9.2020, 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. 145 of 2020, dated 18.9.2020, registered at police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act').
2. Status report filed/prepared by the respondent- State on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating agency, reveals that on 18.9.2020, police after having received secret information that a person namely, Ashok Kumar has gone to Haryana for consignment of drugs, laid Naka at Police check post Behral. At 6.05 pm, motorcycle bearing No. HP 17-A-8677 TVS being driven by Ashok Kumar was stopped for checking. Since, aforesaid person got perplexed after having seen the police, police carried out his personal search as well as of the motorcycle in the presence of independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 1800 capsules of PYN SPAS PLUS. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the person namely Ashok Kumar. During the investigation, above named Ashok Kumar disclosed to the police that though, he is a tailor by profession but since now a days, there is no work on account of lockdown, he on the askance of the person namely, Karamjeet had gone to Haryana from Paonta Sahib for bringing the consignment of drugs. He revealed to the police that accused Karamjeet had given him his motor cycle to enable him to go Hathinikund to meet a person namely Davinder Singh i.e. present bail petitioner. He also disclosed to the police that accused Karamjeet had hired him for Rs. 250/- on daily wages. He disclosed to the police that when he reached Hathinikund, present bail petitioner Davinder Singh gave him telephonic call and handed over the consignment of drugs. In the aforesaid background, present bail petitioner came to be named in the FIR. On the basis of aforesaid information shared by accused Ashok Kumar, police besides investigating the accused Karamjeet also investigated another accused namely, Tinku Kumar, who in their investigation allegedly admitted the factum with regard to delivery of consignment of drugs by present bail petitioner to accused Ashok Kumar. Police during investigation found that person namely Karamjeet and Tinku Kumar had been talking to accused Ashok Kumar frequently while he was going to Hathinikund for taking consignment of drugs. As per investigation, accused Karamjeet gave Rs. 12,800 to accused Tinku Kumar for transferring the same into the bank account of present bail petitioner. As per status report, sum of Rs. 3, 65,000/- in total came to be transferred in the bank account of wife of present bail petitioner from the bank account of accused Tinku Kumar. In the aforesaid background, present bail petitioner came to be arrested on 19.9.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. Co-accused Karamjeet and Tinku Kumar already stand enlarged on bail vide judgments dated 27.4.2021 and 17.12.2020 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 528 of 2021 and Cr.MP(M) No.2084 of 2020. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner coupled with the fact that other co-accused Karamjeet and Tinku Kumar already stand enlarged on bail, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under the changed circumstances.
3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, 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, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. While making th
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496
Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 49
AI
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.