Himachal Pradesh High Court
Piyush Aggarwal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 May, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No.976 of 2023
.
Date of Decision: 22.05.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piyush Aggarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
r and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals with Mr. Rahul
Thakur, Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Ms.
Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy
Advocate Generals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner, namely Piyush Aggarwal, who is behind the bars since 12.02.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 30 of 2023 dated 12.02.2023, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. Respondent-State has filed the status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 12.02.2023, police official of police Station Solan, after having received information that two persons standing near Thodo ground, Solan indulge in illegal trade 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 2of narcotics, constituted a team and stopped the aforesaid two persons namely, Piyush Aggarwal and Arman Thakur. Allegedly in .
presence of two independent witnesses, police recovered 6.20 grams of chitta/heroin from the present bail petitioner. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband on behalf of the petitioner, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.
2. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in past, one case is already registered against him and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 33. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that .
intermediate quantity of Chitta/heroin came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses and as such, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. However, having taken note of the fact that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rigours of Section 37 are not attracted and as such, there is no bar for this Court to consider prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of regular bail.
4. No doubt, in the case at hand, one case already stands registered against bail petitioner under NDPS Act, but mere pendency of such case may not be sufficient to conclude that bail petitioner is a drug peddler, rather it appears that bail petitioner is a drug addict. Though, it has been claimed on behalf of the respondent-State that it had information that bail petitioner indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, but admittedly, petitioner was not apprehended while selling the narcotics to some other party.
Similarly, in earlier case registered under NDPS Act, intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the bail petitioner.
Petitioner, who is a student, has unfortunately become a drug ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 4 addict and in case he is not taken to rehabilitation centre at the earliest, his entire career would be ruined. Otherwise also, no .
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial, rather he needs to be taken to some rehabilitation centre at the earliest, so that he is brought back to main stream.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the 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.
6. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 5 punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail.
Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of .
evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 6 the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether .
bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
10. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-
with one local surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with following conditions:
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS 7(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption .
from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
(e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency.
12. r It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
13. construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
14. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 22, 2023 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2023 20:32:43 :::CIS