Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Christopher Noble @ Kelechi - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2250 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 14 –Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 21 – Grant of bail in case FIR – It is averred in petition that petitioner is innocent and has been roped in a false case – He has been kept behind bars for last about one year without any fault on his part – Challan has been presented in Court and no fruitful purpose shall be achieved by keeping petitioner behind the bars – Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that petitioner shall abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed at time of granting bail to petitioner and will regularly attend hearings during trial – Past conduct and antecedents of petitioner releasing him on bail is likely to prove prejudicial to trial pending against him. [Para 10]
Finding of the Court: There remains no doubt that petitioner is a person with doubtful antecedents – He has no respect for law – Possibility of petitioner indulging in above noted activities intentionally to prolong his stay in India, cannot be ruled out – It cannot be assumed that petitioner, instead of preferring to be deported to country of his origin, would opt to live in a foreign country, that too, in adverse circumstances – Fact that petitioner had been apprehended in a case under NDPS Act cannot be ignored, notwithstanding his acquittal in case – Petitioner has not been adhering to the restriction orders issued against him time and again and each violation amounts to a fresh offence – Keeping in view past conduct and antecedents of petitioner releasing him on bail is likely to prove prejudicial to trial pending against him – It may be difficult to procure his presence for early disposal of trial – In any case process for deportation of petitioner is underway and he will have to remain in confined precincts.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Satyen Vaidya, J.]
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No.302 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021, registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.
2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and has been roped in a false case. He has been kept behind the bars for last about one year without any fault on his part. The challan has been presented in the Court and no fruitful purpose shall be achieved by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed at the time of granting bail to the petitioner and will regularly attend the hearings during the trial.
3. On the other hand, the bail petition has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has no respect for the law. He is a foreign national and is residing in India for the last more than five years without valid documents. The instructions dated 24.11.2022 have also been placed on record, which contains the entire background of the petitioner and his past conduct.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
5. The instructions dated 24.11.2022 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu reveal that the petitioner was apprehended within jurisdiction of Police Station, Manali on 01.01.2016 without passport and visa. Case vide FIR No. 01/2016 was registered against him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short, “the Act”). He remained in custody during the trial. Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 14 of the Act vide judgment dated 28.7.2016 and was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him. Orders to deport the petitioner were also passed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu vide order dated 29.7.2016 issued under Section 3 (2) (E) of the Act directed the petitioner to be kept in restricted area of Police NGO Rest House, Kullu till the process for his deportation was not completed. On 5.8.2016, in violation of the restriction order, petitioner absconded from the premises of Police NGO Rest House, Kullu.
6. On 18.9.2016, petitioner was again arrested in a case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 14 of the Act, vide FIR No.181 of 2016, dated 18.9.2016 registered at Police Station, Manali. He remained under trial and was acquitted by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu vide judgment dated 01.10.2021. The directions were again issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kullu to deport the petitioner to the country of his origin. Again a restriction order under Section 3 (2) (E) of the Act was issued on 7.10.2021, whereby the petitioner was directed to remain confined within the premises of Police, NGO Rest House, Kullu till the process of deportation was completed. Petitioner again violated the restriction order and absconded on 16.10.2021.
7. Another case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was registered against petitioner vide FIR No.302 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021 and presently the petitioner is in custody in the said case.
8. As per status report submitted by the respondent, challan has been presented against the petitioner and petitioner is an under-trial.
9. From the facts noticed above, there remains no doubt that petitioner is a person with doubtful antecedents. He has no respect for the law. The possibility of petitioner indulging in above noted activities intentionally to prolong his stay in India, cannot be ruled out. It cannot be assumed that petitioner, instead of preferring to be deported to the country of his origin, would opt to live in a foreign country, that too, in adverse circumstances. The fact that petitioner had been apprehended in a case under NDPS Act cannot be igno
Grant of Bail - Theft in dwelling house, etc - There is no doubt that grant or denial of bail is entirely discretion of judge considering a case but even so, exercise of judicial discretion has been ....
Foreign nationals, especially undertrials, should not be detained without due process of law. The competent authority should consider alternative options under Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, suc....
The court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to direct visa issuance in bail proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between judicial custody and executive detention under the Foreigners Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of personal liberty, equality before the law, and the need to impose conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability for trial, r....
The court denied bail due to insufficient evidence against the applicant while emphasizing the need for an expedited trial.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
