Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhavan Kumar vs State Of H.P on 29 February, 2020
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P(M) No. 613 of 2019
Reserved on: 8.11.2019
.
Decided on: 29.02.2020
Bhavan Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ......Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents:
r Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. A.G for the
respondent-State.
Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
A Single Bench of this Court has framed the following question of law during the hearing of this petition [Cr.M.P(M) No. 613 of 2019] titled Bhavan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and referred the same to Larger Bench for adjudication:
"Whether Single Bench of this Court while deciding an application for grant of bail can issue a mandate to the Special Courts/Sessions Courts in the State that all applications for grant of bail filed there under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the cases registered under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act be decided as per law laid down by it in Cr.M.P(M) No. 138 of 2019, titled Nasir Mohammad versus State of Himachal Pradesh or not ?1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 2
2. Accordingly, the Registry has placed this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice which ultimately has been referred to this .
Bench for adjudication of the question of law hereinabove formulated for adjudication by the Single Bench.
3. The petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused-petitioner for grant of bail in a case registered against him under Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' in short) vide FIR No. 11 of 2019 in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. It is during the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment that it is the resin contents in a sample of charas are relevant to determine the quantity, rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P(M) No. 332 of 2019 titled Roshan Lal Bhardwaj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 15.03.2019. The operative part of this judgment reads as follows:
"It is made clear that in future all the Special Courts/Sessions Courts concerned, who deal with an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in respect of the offences, constituted, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, shall bear in mind, the, verdict recorded by this Court, upon Cr.M.P.(M) No. 138 of 2019, and, pass orders, in accordance with law. No costs."
4. Now if coming to the petition registered as Cr.M.P(M) No. 138 of 2019 titled Nasir Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, referred to in the judgment supra, the same has also been authored by the same Single Bench and pertains to grant of bail in a case registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act vide FIR ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 3 No. 273 of 2016 in Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba. The Single Bench in Nasir Mohammad's case supra has taken the resin content .
found in the sample of charas during the course of its analysis in the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine its quantity and admitted the accused-petitioner on bail. Such view of the matter has been formed contrary to the view taken by one of us (Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Cr.M.P(M) No. 1751 of 2018 titled Dilbar Singh vs. State of H.P. decided on 11.1.2019. It has been held in this judgment that to consider the quantity on the basis of purified resin content as less than commercial quantity is contrary to the judgments passed by Full Bench of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Mehboob Khan 2013(3) Him. L.R. (FB) 1834 and by a Division Bench in Cr.M.P(M) No.1145 of 2014 titled Nirmal Singh vs. State of H.P. and also order passed by another Single Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P(M) No. 77 of 2018 titled Harinder Singh vs. State of H.P. The ratio of the judgment in Dilbar Singh's case supra reads as follows:-
"30. As held in Mehboob Khan's case, principle of determination of quantity of recovered contraband, on the basis of pure resin contents, is not applicable in case of 'Charas' for its distinct, well defined and elaborated definition provided in Section 2 (iii) of the NDPS Act. E.Michalraj's case is also not applicable to 'Charas'. For definition of 'Charas' in Section 2 (iii) of NDPS Act, separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtain from cannabis plant is 'Charas' and therefore,prior to insertion of Note-4 on 18.11.2009 and thereafter, situation for 'Charas' remains the same. In case of 'Charas',entire mass is to be treated as 'Charas' because of its definition under Section 2 (iii) of NDPS Act, but neither because of Entry No.239 of the Notification ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 4 specifying small quantity and commercial quantity nor because of insertion of Note-4 below it,vide Notification dated 18.11.2009. Therefore, reference of E.Michalraj's .
case along with validity of insertion of Note-4 by the Central Government, by notification SO 2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009 below a notification, specifying small quantity and commercial quantity, to the larger Bench in Hira Singh's case is of no bearing, in case of 'Charas'. Therefore, decision of larger Bench of the Apex Court in Hira Singh's case, in either way will not have any bearing on the cases related to 'Charas'. Therefore,the judgments of the Coordinate Bench, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner.31.
I am bound to follow the former decision of larger Bench of this Court, which in is in consonance with the clarification rendered by the Apex Court in Harjeet Singh's case, with respect to applicability of E.Michalraj's case. These judgments have not been set aside or disturbed or over ruled till date by any subsequent Larger Bench of this Court or by the Apex Court as the case may be.
32. Reference of former decision of the Court, to a larger Bench does not mean that the ratio of law, settled in judgment referred will ipso-facto becomes, redundant or stands over ruled. Unless a judgment is over ruled, the ratio laid down there has a binding force obviously, subject to principles to be followed for determining the precedent. Hence, I am refrain to accept the plea of the petitioner to concur with the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court for considering the quantity of 'Charas' as less than commercial quantity."
5. The Single Bench which has decided Nasir Mohammad's petition has differed with the ratio of the judgment in Dilbar Singh's case supra and held that as per the statutory definition of charas, it is ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 5 the separated resin or resinous substance, the solitary factor or substance being the same within or outside the domain of the statutory .
definition of charas. Also that only the weight of the recovered substance is a determining factor as to whether the same is in small intermediate or commercial quantity did not accept the view of the matter taken by one of us (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Dilbar Singh's case cited supra. The Single Bench which has decided the petition filed by Nasir Mohammad though has referred the observations in Dilbar Singh's case supra and also noted from the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case that unless the presence of neutral substance is established in the recovered charas the entire mass has to be considered as contraband, however, observed that as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the quantum of resinous substance as carried in the bulk recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused is the solitary, statutorily recoknable factor in construing whether the quantity of recovered charas is small, intermediate or commercial quantity. Such conclusion drawn by the Single Bench in Nasir Mohammad's case now has been sought to be followed by all Special Courts/Sessions Courts dealing with an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed for grant of bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act in the State, is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case supra and also by a Division Bench on a reference made by Single Bench in Nirmal Singh's followed by one of us (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Dilbar Singh's case supra.
6. It is seen that the judgment rendered in Nasir Mohammad's case, the Single Bench has heavily placed reliance on the ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 6 judgment of the Apex Court in E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161. The law laid .
down in E. Micheal Raj's case otherwise is referred by a Bench of the Apex Court to a Larger Bench for re-examination in Hira Singh and another vs. Union of India and another (2017) 8 SCC 162. As a matter of fact, the view of the matter taken by the Apex Court in this judgment is also that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance/s, for the purpose of imposition of punishment, it is the content of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which shall be taken into consideration.
Meaning thereby that the content of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance would only be minus neutral substance/s, if any, in the recovered contraband. The Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case has considered the judgment of the Apex Court in E. Micheal Raj's case and taken a similar view that the percentage of resin contents in the stuff analyzed is not a determinative factor of small quantity, above smaller quantity and less than commercial quantity (intermediatory) and the commercial quantity. Rather, if in the entire stuff recovered from the accused, resin of cannabis is found present on analysis, whole of the stuff has to be taken to determine the quantity i.e. smaller, above smaller, (intermediary) or commercial. Further that separated resin is cannabis resin not only when it is in purified form, but also when in crude form or still mixed with other parts of the plant. Also that the resin mixed with other parts of the plant i.e. in crude form is also charas as legislation in its wisdom has never intended to exclude the weight of the mixture i.e. other parts of the plant in the resin unless or until such mixture proves to have some other neutral substance and ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 7 not that of other parts of the cannabis plant. Once the expert expressed the opinion that after conducting the required tests, he .
found the resin present in the stuff and as the charas is a resinous mass and after conducting tests if in the opinion of the expert the entire mass is a sample of charas, no fault can be found with the opinion so expressed by the expert.
6. It has further been held in Mehboob Khan's case supra that the neutral material which is not obtained from cannabis plant cannot be treated as resin of the cannabis plants. The resin rather must have been obtained from the cannabis plants may be in crude form or purified form. In common parlance, charas is a hand made drug made from extract of cannabis plant. Therefore, any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the forms of cannabis is to be considered as a contraband article and no concentration and percentage of resin is prescribed for charas under the Act.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Such being the legal position, we fail to understand as to how the Single Bench which has decided the petition, registered as Cr.M.P(M) No. 332 of 2019 titled Roshan Lal Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P and Cr.M.P(M) No. 138 of 2019 titled Nasir Mohammad vs. State of H.P. and also several other petitions cited by learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner in Dilbar Singh' case i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1328 of 2018, titled as Jaswant Singh v. State of H.P., decided on 25.10.2018,Cr.MP(M) No.1505 of 2018, titled as Sewak Ram vs. State of H.P., decided on 22.11.2018, Cr.MP(M)No.1625 of 2018, titled as Narayan Singh vs. State of H.P. decided on 20.12.2018,Cr.MP(M) Nos.
1777 & 1778 of 2018, titled as Bresati Devi vs. State of H.P. and Pawan ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 8 Kumar vs. State of H.P. decided on 27.12.2018 and Cr.MP(M) No.1765 of 2018, titled as Nageshwar Dipta vs. State of H.P., decided on .
28.12.2018 could have taken a view contrary to the one taken by Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case and Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal Singh's case and followed by another Single Bench in Dilbar Singh's case referred to hereinabove that it is the resin contents in the recovered charas have to be taken to determine its quantity as small, intermediatory or commercial. In our considered opinion, such a view of the matter has been taken contrary to the judicial precedents and contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, hence against all legal decency and judicial discipline.
8. There is no question of learned Single Judge disagreeing with the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case and also by Division Bench in Nirmal Singh's case cited supra.
The view of the matter taken by one of us (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Dilbar Singh's case that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench is binding on the Single Bench has been ignored by the Bench, which has decided Nasir Mohammad's petition for grant of bail subsequently. In the event of disagreement, if any, reasons therefor should have been recorded and the matter referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.
This alone would have been the only course available to the Single Bench, which has decided the petition filed by Nasir Mohammad aforesaid and granted the bail to said Nasir Mohammad and also Roshan Lal Bhardwaj aforesaid as well as to the petitioners in similar petitions referred before one of us (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) during the course of arguments in Dilbar Singh's case. The approach of learned ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 9 Single Bench, which has decided Nasir Mohammad's case is therefore unknown to law, hence cannot be approved in any manner whatsoever.
.
9. As per the precedent, the earlier decisions of the Benches of equal strength are binding unless explained by the Bench of equal strength in the later decision and in that event the later decision is binding. Our own High Court in Manju Bala vs. State of H.P and others, Latest HLJ 2012 (HP) (FB) 687 has held as under:-
"10....That is a power to be exercised on the administrative side. It is not to be invoked on a reference. The plain purpose is only to enable the chief Justice to place any matter before the Full Bench otherwise than on a reference, in the required contingencies like public interest, the interests of administration of justice, the exigencies of administration of the institution etc. It is the absolute prerogative of the Chief Justice to distribute the work in the High Court and post any case before any bench, subject of course to the provisions in the High Court Act. That power cannot be compelled to be invoked on a reference."
10. The upshot of the above discussion is:
i) The Single Bench of the High Court is ordinarily bound by the decision of another Single Bench.
In case it is found necessary in situations like the judgment being rendered per incuriam or subsilentio, the subsequent change in the legal position etc., the only course open to the learned Single Judge is to refer the matter to the Division Bench and not to render another judgment.
ii) A Single Bench is bound by the Division Bench judgment.
iii) When there are two Division Bench decisions, the binding decision ordinarily is the later in point of time unless the former is rendered on the basis of a binding Full Bench decision.
::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 10iv) However, in a situation of conflicting binding decisions on the same issue, the attention of the Chief Justice can be invited so that the .
Chief Justice may, if required, constitute a larger Bench.
11. The instant case is not one of conflicting bench decision. There is direct Division Bench judgment on the point (in Baldev Singh's case) and hence, the single bench is bound by the same. Thus, the reference made by the learned Single Judge for consideration by a Full Bench is incompetent."
10. It is crystal clear from the ratio of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Manju Bala's case supra that not only the judgment rendered by a Single Bench is binding upon other Single Bench but in case of there being a Division Bench judgment, the same is binding on the Single Bench and also the Bench of equal strength. In the case in hand, as noticed supra, not only the judgment of Full Bench in Mehboob Khan's case but also the judgment of a Division Bench in Nirmal Singh's case though discussed, however, ignored contrary to the well settled legal principles and the Single Bench has formed its own opinion. Such an approach is not legally admissible.
11. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others vs. State of M.P and others, AIR 2003 Madhya Pradesh 81 Full Bench in a detailed judgment authored by the then Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhawani Singh, J. has also taken similar view of the matter. This judgment reads as follows:
"8. Having considered the matter with broader dimensions, we find that various High Courts have given different opinion on the question involved. Some hold that in case of conflict between two judgments on a point ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 11 of law, later decision should be followed; while others say that the Court should follow the decision which is correct and accurate whether it is earlier or later. There are High .
Courts which hold that decision of earlier Bench is binding because of the theory of binding precedent and Article 141 of the Constitution of India. There are also decisions which hold that Single Judge differing from another Single Judge decision should refer the case to Larger Bench, otherwise he is bound by it. Decisions which are rendered without considering the decisions expressing contrary view have no value as a precedent. But in our considered opinion, the position may be stated thus- With regard to the High Court, a Single Bench is bound by the decision of another Single Bench. In case, he does not agree with the view of the other Single Bench, he should refer the matter to the Larger Bench. Similarly, Division Bench is bound by the judgment of earlier Division Bench. In case, it does not agree with the view of the earlier Division Bench, it should refer the matter to Larger Bench. In case of conflict between judgments of two Division Benches of equal strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed except when it is explained by the latter Division Bench in which case the decision of later Division Bench shall be binding. The decision of Larger Bench is binding on Smaller Benches.
In case of conflict between two decisions of the Apex Court, Benches comprising of equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding unless explained by the latter Bench of equal strength, in which case the later decision is binding. Decision of a Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. Therefore, the decision of earlier Division Bench, unless distinguished by latter Division Bench, is binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 12 Courts. Similarly, in presence of Division Bench decisions and Larger Bench decisions, the decisions of Larger Bench are binding on the High Courts and .
the Subordinate Courts. No decision of Apex Court has been brought to our notice which holds that in case of conflict between the two decisions by equal number of Judges, the later decision in binding in all circumstances, or the High Courts and Subordinate Courts can follow any decision which is found correct and accurate to the case under consideration. High Courts and Subordinate Courts should lack competence to interpret decisions of Apex Court since that would not only defeat what is envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but also militate hierarchical supremacy of Courts. The common thread which runs through various decisions of Apex Court seems to be that great value has to be attached to precedent which has taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the purpose of consistency and exactness in decisions of Court, unless the Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a precedent or is per incuriam, having been rendered without noticing some earlier precedents with which the Court agrees. Full Bench decision in Balbir Singh's case (supra) which holds that if there is conflict of views between the two co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, the High Court has to follow the judgment which appears to it to state the law more elaborately and more accurately and in conformity with the scheme of the Act, in our considered opinion, for reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, does not lay down the correct law as to application of precedent and is, therefore, over-ruled on this point.::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 13
12. In view of the law so laid down by the Full Bench of our own High Court in Manju Bala's case and by the Full Bench of the .
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association's case, the Single Bench which has decided Nasir Mohammad's bail application and other bail applications including Roshan Lal Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P. could have not formed an opinion that it is the resin contents in a stuff of charas recovered from an accused are determining factors so as to its quantity small, intermediary or commercial is concerned. The judgment rendered by one of us (Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Dilbar Singh's case supra that ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench is binding on Single Bench has been ignored by the Single Bench which has decided the application filed by Nasir Mohammad etc. later on.
13. Now if coming to the directions to all Special Courts/Sessions Courts dealing with an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, to bear in mind the verdict recorded in Nasir Mohammad's case supra, no such direction could have been issued being legally unsustainable. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) 8 SCC 294. The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows:-
"14. So, even while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 14 and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the .
discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. It is the members of the subordinate judiciary who directly interact with the parties in the course of proceedings of the case and therefore, it is no less important that their independence should be protected effectively to the satisfaction of the litigants. The independence of the judiciary has been considered as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and such independence is postulated not only from the Executive, but also from all other sources of pressure. In S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India 1981 (Supp.) SCC 87, speaking on the independence of the judiciary, a Bench of seven Judges observed as under
at page 221-222 :-
"The concept of independence of judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity.. But it is necessary to remind ourselves that the concept of independence of judiciary is not limited only to independence from executive pressure or influence but it is a much wider concept which takes within its sweep independence from many other pressures and prejudices. It has many dimensions, namely, fearlessness of other power centres, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the Judges belong."
15. The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the power of superintendence and control ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 15 over the subordinate courts is conferred on the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution and therefore the Inspecting Judge was fully justified under certain .
circumstances to entertain the bail petitions or transfer applications and direct the District Judges or other courts to pass appropriate orders. We find no force in this contention. This plea has been raised without any basis. Article 235 of the Constitution gives power to the High Court to exercise control over the subordinate courts. This power has been specifically described in Article 235 in a comprehensive sense so as to include the powers of general superintendence over the working of the subordinate courts; disciplinary control over the Presiding Judges of the subordinate courts which includes power to make inquiry; and impose punishments other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank subject, of course, to the rules of services and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. This power also would include the power to order disciplinary inquiry, transfers, promotions of members of subordinate judiciary and confirmation of officers etc. It also includes the power to recall officers of the subordinate courts holding ex cadre posts or to send officers on deputation to other administrative posts or award selection grade or pass orders on any such matters connected with service. The powers of control to be exercised under Article 235 of the Constitution do not extend to interfering with the judicial functions of the subordinate courts. By virtue of the power under Article 235 the High Court cannot direct the presiding officer to pass a judicial order in a particular manner as that would certainly amount to interfering with the independence of the subordinate judiciary.
16. In the course of inspection, the High Court Judge is required to examine whether the courts are functioning ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 16 within the norms laid down by the High Court. Mostly the inspection is to be confined to the administrative functioning of the courts and its officers. If any member of .
the administrative staff is not doing the work assigned to him or is causing any delay in the process of administration of justice, the Inspecting Judge can give proper direction and see that the courts function smoothly. But under no circumstances, the Inspecting Judge, as part of his administrative duty enjoys the power to interfere with the judicial functions of the subordinate courts in individual cases. In the course of inspection, a High Court Judge cannot pass any order on interim applications, such as bail petitions or transfer applications or applications for interim injunction, howsoever justified they may be. Orders on bail applications are passed under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under various other enactments, which provide for grant of bail and such orders are passed as part of the judicial work.
The Inspecting Judge is not supposed to pass any judicial order in individual cases in the course of inspection. Of course, he can give administrative directions to the Presiding Officer or to any of the subordinate staff, if such directions are pertinent in the context of administration of justice. Except giving general directions regarding any matter concerning administration of justice, any interference in the judicial functions of the Presiding Officer would amount to interference with the independence of the subordinate judiciary."
14. After having answered the reference, the petition be placed before the Single Bench for decision on merits.
15. Since the Single Bench, which has decided Cr.M.P (M) No.138 of 2019, titled Nasir Mohammad versus State of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to Nasir Mohammad and also Roshan Lal ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 17 Bhardwaj in Cr.M.P(M) No. 332 of 2019 and also to the petitioner in several other petitions mentioned in Dilbar Singh's case and also in .
para 7 of this judgment, while taking a view contrary to the one taken by Full Bench of this Court in Mehboob Khan's case supra and by a Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal Singh's case also followed by one of us (Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.) in Dilbar Singh's case supra, therefore, we will be failing in our duty, if not, pass appropriate directions in this regard. Though show cause notice should have been issued straightway to the accused persons hereinabove, who have been ordered to be admitted on bail by not appreciating the law laid down in Mehboob Khan's case in its right perspective, however, we leave it open to learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh to consider the desirability of filing of appropriate application(s) for cancellation of the liberty of bail so granted by learned Single Judge by taking a contrary view in Nasir Mohammad's case supra. Similarly, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh also to examine the desirability to consider the filing of application(s) before the Sessions Judges (Special Judges) in the State for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons in the cases registered under the NDPS Act while placing reliance on the judgment in Nasir Mohammad's case and Roshan Lal Bhardwaj's case referred to hereinabove.
16. Authenticated copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all the Sessions Judges/Special Judges and also the Additional Sessions Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Judicial Magistrates in the State of Himachal Pradesh for compliance. A Copy of this judgment be also supplied to learned Advocate General and Additional Chief ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP 18 Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for compliance.
.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
February 29, 2020 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(naveen) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2020 20:24:19 :::HCHP