IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Ram Lal - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 324 of 2023
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act - Sections 20 and 29 - Recovery of Charas - Search and seizure - Investigation - Charge-sheet - Recovered 6 kg. 024 grams of charas – Bail petition - Police officials nabbed one and recovered 6 kg. 024 grams of charas from gunny bag carried by him - Case was registered and said was arrested - Evidence to implicate petitioner is confessional statement allegedly made - Help of CDRs is also being taken to prove offence against petitioner under Section 29 of the NDPS Act - Petitioner has approached Court for grant of bail on ground that his implication is false - There is no legal evidence against him - Confessional statement made by coaccused is of no avail - petitioner is also stated to have made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereto he had disclosed the place where his coaccused had allegedly handed over the contraband to him. (Para 7).
Finding of Court :
Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in his favour - Facts and circumstances of case are sufficient to infer reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not accused of offence alleged against him. Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act - There is no material against petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail - Petitioner is permanent resident of Village and there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner may abscond or flee from course of justice.
Result: Bail petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 45 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act), at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2022.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2020 at about 4.00 p.m. police officials nabbed one Rajkumar and recovered 6 kg. 024 grams of charas from gunny bag carried by him. Case was registered and said Rajkumar was arrested.
3. On 26.05.2022, police arrested the petitioner with the allegations that he had sold the charas to Rajkumar.
4. Evidence to implicate the petitioner is the confessional statement allegedly made by Rajkumar. Help of CDRs is also being taken to prove the offence against the petitioner under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
5. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on the ground that his implication is false. There is no legal evidence against him. The confessional statement made by coaccused is of no avail. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no concern with Rajkumar and the allegations of he being in contact with Rajkumar telephonically are baseless. It is further contended that he is in custody for more than eight months. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Kutwa, P.O. Jaon, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.
7. The contents of status report filed on behalf of the respondent reveal that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of information allegedly provided by coaccused and also CDRs in respect of calls allegedly exchanged between both coaccused. Further, petitioner is also stated to have made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereto he had disclosed the place where his coaccused had allegedly handed over the contraband to him.
8. The disclosure made by coaccused cannot be read against the petitioner. As per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022) 2 Scale 14, the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold prima facie case against coaccused.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in his favour. The facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to infer reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not accused of offence alleged against him. Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act. There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail.
10. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Kutwa, P.O. Jaon, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P., and there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner may abscond or flee from the course of justice.
11. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.45 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, registered under Sections 20 & 29 of ND&PS, Act, at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.
(iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without per
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu
State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another
Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act. There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal act....
Point of Law : . There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail.
The inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the requirement of prima facie evidence for granting bail in NDPS Act cases.
No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing detention of petitioner in custody for indeterminate period. Pre-trial incarceration otherwise is not the rule.
Drug abuse has become serious hazard to social and economic development.
(1) 510 gms of “Charas” – No Recovery of contraband – The quantity of contraband involved in the case is intermediate, hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable.(2) SIM card i....
Undue delay in trial, in appropriate cases, can be a reason to release an accused of offence involving commercial quantity under ND&PS Act.
Merely because police has found some evidence of withdraw of money by Mandeep Kumar from ATM at Anni is not sufficient to infer that money was paid to petitioner - Exchange of phone calls is a subjec....
The weight of contraband and the petitioner's criminal history are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility in NDPS Act cases.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
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.