IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Surinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.489 of 2024
Decided on : 05-04-2024.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Pre-Arrest Bail - Section 21, 8(C) - [Section 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act] - The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, Surinder Kumar, who was accused of possessing 5.65 grams of heroin. The court found that the prima facie accusation pointed towards the petitioner's involvement in the offence, and his past conduct indicated a pattern of illegal activities. The court emphasized the severity of the offence and the danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail. It also highlighted the societal interests and the need to enforce the rule of law in dealing with drug trafficking.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Surinder Kumar, was arrested for possessing 5.65 grams of heroin. He sought pre-arrest bail, claiming innocence and alleging false implication. The court found that the prima facie accusation pointed towards the petitioner's involvement in the offence, and his past conduct indicated a pattern of illegal activities. The court emphasized the severity of the offence and the danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prima facie accusation pointed towards the petitioner's involvement in the offence, and his past conduct indicated a pattern of illegal activities. The court emphasized the severity of the offence and the danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, Surinder Kumar, should be granted pre-arrest bail in a case involving possession of 5.65 grams of heroin.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the severity of the offence and the danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail. It also highlighted the societal interests and the need to enforce the rule of law in dealing with drug trafficking.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, Surinder Kumar, emphasizing the severity of the offence and the danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
The petitioner-accused (Surinder Kumar) has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, originating from FIR No.139 of 2023, dated 17.10.2023, under Section 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The case set up by the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] is that the bail petitioner has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, on 17.10.2023 in FIR No.139 of 2023, registered at Police Station under Sections 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case set up is that on 17.10.2023, the police party while on traffic checking noticed a motorcycle Splendor bearing No. HP72A-2979 with one rider. On noticing the police, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] became perplex. On being asked by the police, he disclosed his name as Surinder Kumar-applicant/accused. The bag containing the Heroin/Chitta, weighing 5.65 grams was recovered from the bag, being carried by the bail petitioner (Surinder Kumar) herein.
2(i). After apprehending the bail petitioner, the codal formalities under Section 50 of the NDPS and other requisite formalities under the Act were undertaken. Thereafter the Rukka was prepared leading to the registration of the FIR.
2(ii). Consequent upon the registration of the FIR on 17.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] approached the Learned Special Judge-I Una, vide Bail Application No.470 of 2023 but the same was dismissed on 07.02.2024 as under:
6. I have given deep thought to the rival contentions and scrutinized the record carefully.
7. The applicant has been arrested by the police in connection with case FIR No. 139/23 dt 17.10.2023 under Section 21, 8C of the ND&PS Act registered at PS Gagret with the allegation that on 17.10.2023 when police party led by HC Vijay Kumar, was present at old Amb road Gagret near Swan foundation Kaloh Velly at about 3.05 PM and intercepted a motorcycle bearing No. HP72A-2979 over which accused/applicant was riding and had thrown a small box from his pocket from which 5.65 gm heroin was recovered, The contention raised by the counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated cannot be decided at this stage and the same would be decided during trial. At the time of considering the bail application, the detail scrutiny of the evidence is not required, only following factors are required to be taken into consideration:-
(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension or the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
In the present case, there are serious allegations against the applicant that he was transporting heroin to the extent of 5.65 gr
Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another (2012) 9 SCC 446
Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai versus State of Gujarat and another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1092
Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Hira Singh versus Union of India
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan
P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of Enforcement
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598
Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi
Bail – To attain objective of NDPS Act and to ensure rule of law, such persons who are prima facie involved in nefarious drug abuse, such persons have no vested right to be enlarged on bail under pre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail should be granted only when the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to belief or po....
Bail under the NDPS Act is discretionary, emphasizing public safety over personal liberty, especially when serious allegations of possession near commercial quantities exist.
Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug....
Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted sparingly, balancing individual liberty with societal interests, and requires lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner.
The main legal principle established is that the grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases is exceptional and should be based on the absence of prima facie evidence, the nature of the alleged contraba....
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
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.