IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Talbe Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 234 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Containing 2 kg. 225 grams of charas - Recovered - Possession - Police stopped bus bearing registration for checking - Since during checking, passengers sitting on seats No.1 and 2 got perplexed and tried to hide something beneath their seats, police after having associated independent witnesses effected their personal search as well as of bag kept beneath their seats and allegedly, recovered one bag, containing 2 kg. 225 grams of charas - Since passengers sitting on seats No. 1 and 2 were unable to render proper explanation qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after registration of FIR, arrested accused and since then, bail petitioner is behind bars, whereas other co-accused namely Megh Singh already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated passed in CrMP(M) No. - Since Challan stands filed in competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail on ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. (Para 10)
Finding of Court :
No doubt quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is commercial and as such, rigours of S. 37 of Act are attracted but bare perusal of provisions contained under S.37 nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in cases involving commercial quantity rather in such cases, court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of bail he will not indulge in such activities again - In instant case, bail petitioner is behind bars since 2 years and 10 months and till date trial has not been completed and there are very bleak chances of conclusion of the same in near future, as such, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, during trial, keeping in view the fact that the bail petitioner is a first offender and there is no other case against him, apart from the present one - Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law - Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, bail petitioner Talbe Ram, has approached this Court, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 23/19 dated 1.2.2019 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Status report filed in terms of order dated 30.1.2023 reveals that on 31.1.2019 at 10:30 p.m, police stopped bus bearing registration No.DL1PC-4550 for checking. Since during checking, passengers sitting on seats No.1 and 2 got perplexed and tried to hide something beneath their seats, police after having associated independent witnesses effected their personal search as well as of bag kept beneath their seats and allegedly, recovered one bag, containing 2 kg. 225 grams of charas. Since passengers sitting on seats No. 1 and 2 were unable to render proper explanation qua the possession of the aforesaid commercial quantity of the contraband, police after registration of FIR, arrested the accused on 1.2.2019 and since then, the bail petitioner is behind the bars, whereas other co-accused namely Megh Singh already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.1.2023 passed in CrMP(M) No. 39 of 2023. 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 regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.
3. Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently states that contraband was never recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather from the bag kept beneath his seat and as such, he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that it is yet to be established on record that bag kept below the seat occupied by the bail petitioner was belonging to him and till the time said fact is not proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence, bail petitioner is deemed to be innocent. He further submits that otherwise also, petitioner deserves enlargement on bail on account of delay in conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of today, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined out of twenty prosecution witnesses. While inviting attention of this court to the order dated 12.1.2023, passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 39/2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused already stands enlarged on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial and as such, petitioner being similarly situate also deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record to suggest that bail petitioner alongwith co-accused had been transporting the commercial quantity of contraband on the date of the alleged incident in a bag allegedly recovered from beneath their seats and as such, it cannot be said that they have been falsely implicated. He submits that delay, if any, in conclusion of the trial was on account of COVID-19 and since number of prosecution witnesses are being examined after short intervals, there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is every likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial. He submits that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may indulge in such like activities again and as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail may be rejected ou
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018
Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496
Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 49
SupremeToday
While deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right; bail may be granted in narcotics cases if incarceration time exceeds reasonable limits without trial completion.
Non-disclosure of arrest grounds violates Article 22(1), vitiating arrest and warranting bail; prolonged two-year pre-trial detention due to trial delays in NDPS commercial quantity case violates Art....
The right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, supersedes other concerns, justifying the granting of bail despite serious charges and prolonged detention.
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial constitutes a violation of Article 21, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities o....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
(1) Bail – Freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.(2) There is no comp....
The denial of bail based solely on the nature of the crime violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially in cases with prolonged detention awaiting trial.
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, prolonged incarceration over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right; bail grantable despite Section 37 if guilt unproven and....
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.