SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Shahjad Ali S/o Shri Abdul Gaffar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 233 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Servedaman Rathore.
For the Respondents: Shiv Pal Manhans, Vikrant Chandel, Raju Ram Rahi, Shriyek Sharda.

Point of Law: Where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - ND&PS Act - Sections 22-61-85 and 37 0 Indulged in business of selling Drugs - Commercial quantity - Quantity of contraband - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail - A police team was on routine patrol duty they received a secret information that accused is indulged in business of selling Drugs (narcotic capsules) - On finding information genuine, police party proceeded - They have reached to house of accused and search of house of accused was conducted. During search, they found a knotted polythene bag from a steel almirah - On opening polythene bag, they recovered 18 packets of restricted/narcotic tablets in which total 180 capsules were found. In each packet of restricted/narcotic tables “Parvion Spas Composition.

Finding of the court: considering fact that alleged recovered quantity of contraband is less than commercial quantity, so rigors of Section 37 of ND&PS Act are not applicable to instant case, fact that petitioner is first time offender, considering age of petitioner, who is 42 years old, fact that now investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in learned Trial Court, custody of petitioner is not at all required by police, as nothing remains to be recovered at instance of petitioner, petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering all facets of case and without discussing them elaborately at this stage, Court finds that present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour - It is ordered that petitioner, in case FIR shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court.

Result: Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 12/22, dated 6.1.2022, under Sections 22-61-85 of the ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 16.1.2022 at about 11.02 a.m. a police team was on routine patrol duty and then at about 11.40 a.m. near Primary School, Amarkot, Paonta Sahib, they received a secret information that the accused is indulged in the business of selling Drugs (narcotic capsules). On finding the information genuine, the police party proceeded to Amarkot. At about 12.05 p.m. they have reached to the house of accused and search of the house of the accused was conducted. During search, they found a knotted polythene bag from a steel almirah. On opening the polythene bag, they recovered 18 packets of restricted/narcotic tablets in which total 180 capsules were found. In each packet of restricted/narcotic tables “Parvion Spas Composition: Each Hard Geletin Capsule contains: Diclomine Hydrochloride I.P. 10 mg. Tramadol Hydrochloride I.P. 50 Mg, Acelaminophen, I.P. 325 mg.” was written. When the police asked about theses tablets, the accused could not produce any permit for keeping these tablets. On weighing the 180 tablets so recovered from the accused, it was found to be 132.73 grams. Police completed all the codal formalities and the petitioner was arrested. A case under the apt Section of ND&PS was registered and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. It is prayed that at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete; nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. The custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation, so the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail application. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and considerable quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from his possession, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custody is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars for about one month and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petiti

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top