IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
Pawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2396 of 2024a/w Cr.MP(M) No. 2721 of 2024
Decided on : 04-01-2025
(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 & 29 - Bail applications - Petitioners sought bail on grounds of innocence and delay in trial - Court emphasized that successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances - Previous applications dismissed due to commercial quantity of contraband - No substantial change found to warrant bail. (Paras 2, 4, 16)
(B) Bail - Right to speedy trial - While the right to life and personal liberty is fundamental, it can be curtailed in the interest of society - Judicial discretion in granting bail must consider the facts of each case. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested for allegedly selling charas/cannabis, with a significant quantity recovered during police patrol. They claimed false implication and sought bail due to prolonged custody since 30.10.2022. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial change in circumstances since previous bail applications were dismissed, thus denying the current bail requests. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners' rights were violated due to trial delays and if there were changed circumstances justifying bail. (Paras 4, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without substantial changes in circumstances, successive bail applications cannot be entertained, reaffirming the principle that the right to bail is not absolute and must consider societal interests. (Paras 12, 16)
Result: Bail applications dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
Since both these petitions arise out of FIR No. 167/2022, dated 30.10.2022, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of instant petitions, filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners are seeking bail in case FIR No. 167/2022, dated 30.10.2022, registered at Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.10.2022, at about 9:15 P.M., while police party was on routine patrolling duty at Drang, they received a secret information that one white colour Kiger car, without number plate, was parked in the pine forest on a link road adjacent to National Highway Praour, in which, one woman namely Bimla Devi and one man namely Pawan Kumar were sitting, who were in the process of selling charas/cannabis and if search of the said vehicle was conducted, huge quantity of charas/cannabis could be recovered. Accordingly, police party went in search of the aforesaid persons and at about 9:40 P.M., when they reached the spot, they saw two persons, one man and one woman, sitting in the vehicle. On asking, the man sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name as Pawan Kumar and woman sitting on the co-driver seat disclosed her name as Bimla Devi (petitioners herein). Both the accused persons were asked as to what they were doing in the jungle, however, they could not give any satisfactory answer. On suspicion, the police associated Vikram and Bhupinder Singh as independent witnesses in the proceedings, in whose presence, the vehicle in question was checked and underneath the co-driver seat, one yellow coloured carry bag was recovered. On opening of the said bag, four packets wrapped with brown tape were found. In the said packets, dark brown coloured hard substance in the shape of sticks was recovered, which was found to be charas/cannabis. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 2 Kg and 09 grams. During further checking of the vehicle, underneath the footmat of the driver seat, one yellow coloured bag was found. On opening of the said bag, currency notes of Rs. 80,000/-, i.e. 158 notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- and five notes of denomination of Rs. 200/- were recovered. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and consequently, FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 30.10.2022 and the trial is not going to be completed in near future, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. He also contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioners, as such, they are entitled to be released on bail on the ground that their right of speedy trial has been violated.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail applications on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners and the quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. commercial quantity, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail applications filed by the petitioners are the successive petitions, which are liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of their earlier bail applications.
6. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioners. Earlier, the petitioner-Pawan Kumar had preferred two bail applications, i.e., Cr.MP(M)
AI
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; without such change, they cannot be entertained.
The severity of allegations in a narcotics case prohibits bail unless substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated, regardless of the length of pre-trial custody.
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not suffice for bail in serious offenses.
Successive bail applications require substantial changed circumstances, not mere trial delay or prolonged incarceration, especially in grave offences like murder.
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Successive bail applications require material change in circumstances; no review of prior rejections. Belated Article 22(1) non-communication plea after multiple bail denials and red-handed arrest re....
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.
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.