Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Puneet Mahajan - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2878 of 2024
Decided on : 01-01-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21 - Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Applicant claims innocence and argues that the contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity' - Previous cases against the applicant noted, including acquittal in one case - Police status report indicates completion of investigation and no need for custodial interrogation - Court finds no useful purpose in continued judicial custody given the uncertain timeline for trial. (Paras 1-36)
(B) Habitual Offender - Definition clarified; mere registration of cases does not equate to habitual offending without conviction - Court emphasizes the need for accurate police records regarding acquittals to avoid prejudice. (Paras 24-26)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, arrested for possession of heroin, argues for bail citing lack of evidence and previous acquittal. The police report indicates the investigation is complete, and the applicant's trial is not expected to conclude soon.
Findings of Court:
The court allows the bail application, emphasizing the lack of necessity for continued custody and the importance of accurate police records.
Issues: The main issues include the definition of 'commercial quantity' and the implications of previous cases on the applicant's bail eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant does not fall under the habitual offender definition and highlighted the importance of updating police records to reflect acquittals accurately.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Puneet Mahajan has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 170 of 2023, dated 5.11.2023, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), registered with Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever, with the offence, for which, he has been arrested, by the police.
3. Apart from this, the applicant has put forward the fact that in this case, chances of conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future are not so bright. As such, according to him, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him, in the judicial custody.
4. According to the applicant, the contraband, allegedly recovered from his possession, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 are not applicable, in the present case.
5. Apart from this, the applicant has given the details of the cases, which have been registered against him, as under:
i) FIR No. 97/2014, dated 25.4.2014, under Sections 20 of ND &PS Act in PS Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in which the petitioner was acquitted.
ii) FIR No. 139/21 dated 3.5.2021, under Sections 20 and 21 of ND & PS Act in PS Nurpur, District Kangra,H.P.
iii) FIR No. 62/23, dated 23.3.2023, under Section 21 of the ND & PS Act in PS Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
iv) FIR No. 306/2023 dated 10.9.2023, under Section 21 of ND & PS Act in PS Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
6. Applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application bearing No. 248-XXII/2024, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2024.
7. Apart from this, the applicant has also annexed the copies of statements of PWs 1 to 10, recorded in this case, before the learned trial Court.
8. All these documents have been annexed to show that no case is made out against the applicant.
9. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
10. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
11. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 4.11.2023, HC Trilok No. 52, I.O. Police Station, Indora, has submitted the ruqua to Police Station for registration of the FIR, disclosing therein that on 4.11.2023, he, alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics. While on patrolling, when they were coming back from Malot side to Police Station, then, at about 11:45 p.m. at a place known as ‘Dah’, one shop was found to be closed. About 50 meters away from there, the Police team put a picketing and started checking the vehicles.
11.1 At about 11:50 p.m., one person was found coming on foot from Malot side. On seeing the picketing party, he concealed himself in the counter of the said shop. On suspicion, he was nabbed, upon which, he threw a transparent polythene, from the pocket of his lower. In the meanwhile, two persons were found coming from Malot side on their motorcycle. On inquiry, the said persons disclosed their names as Satish Kumar and Ajay Kumar, They were associated by the I,O. in the investigation.
11.2 Thereafter, the person, so nabbed was inquired. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Puneet Mahajan, S/o Tarsem Lal (applicant).
11.3 In the presence of the aforesaid two independent witnesses, the polythene envelope, which the applicant had allegedly thrown away, was checked. On opening, the same was found to be containing a granular shaped substance, which, on inquiry, was di
The court emphasized that mere registration of cases does not classify an individual as a habitual offender without convictions, and highlighted the necessity for accurate police records regarding ac....
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Bail granted in NDPS case for non-commercial quantity contraband; presumption of innocence upheld despite prior FIRs without conviction; parity with co-accused; no pre-trial punishment post charge-sh....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail granted where accused involvement relies solely on co-accused's custodial disclosure statement, inadmissible under evidence law, satisfying Section 37 twin con....
Pre-trial detention is prohibited; the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender, and the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases demands reasonable grounds beyond prima facie for believing accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend under Section 37's mandatory twin conditions; disclosure....
Bail must not be denied as a punitive measure; presumption of innocence prevails and applicants are entitled to bail as per parity with co-accused.
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
