Amit Singh Moni vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 109]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Amit Singh Moni vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2019

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

                                    Cr.MP(M) No. 2150 of 2019





                                    Date of Decision: December 20 , 2019

    Amit Singh Moni                                                  ...Petitioner.





                                    Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                        ...Respondent.





    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Gursimar Singh Alagh, Advocate, for the appellant.

For the respondent : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, for the respondent/State.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

For possessing 3 k.g. & 285 grams of charas, the petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as one of the accused in FIR Number 62 of 2018, dated 23.2.2018, registered under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred as the "NDPS Act"), in the file of Police Station Sadar, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:28 :::HCHP 2

2. ASI Rajinder Singh, Investigating Officer, Police Station Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., is present along with records. Status report .

stands filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. Police file perused to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and the same stands returned to the police official.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. In this case five occupants of a car are facing prosecution for jointly possessing 3 k.g. & 285 grams of charas. Sh. Gursimar Singh Alagh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possibility of one or more of these occupants to be unaware of the contraband cannot be ruled out. He further submits that these people are facing prolonged trial and are in custody from 23.2.2018. He further states that the contraband was concealed in the door of the car and the keys of the car must be with its driver Surinder Kumar. As such, the other four persons would be not at all aware of what he had concealed inside the door of the said car. He further states that there is no investigation that the bail petitioner had under some pretext obtained the keys of the car from its driver Surinder Kumar.

He further states that due to this reason Surinder Kumar has been arrayed as accused No. 1 i.e. the principal accused.

::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:28 :::HCHP 3

5. Although it shall not be appropriate to outrightly comment on these submissions, but because the quantity of charas involved is .

commercial quantity, and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act creep in, therefore, the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act needs satisfaction.

6. After arguing for considerable long time, only confining his arguments to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, Sh.

Gursimar Singh, learned counsel, representing the petitioner states that the trial is at an advanced stage, and in view of the submissions made above regarding the possibility of one or more of the occupants of the car being innocent, it is a case where at least the trial be expedited. He further submits that he is not pressing the present petition and prays for liberty to come again on the same facts and that the trial be expedited as the career of the petitioner has almost spoiled because of his detention, which according to the learned counsel is unwarranted, as his client was not aware of the contraband inside the car.

7. Be that as it may, in view of the above submissions, it is a fit case the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi is requested to ensure that the judgment is pronounced in this case before the Court goes for winter vacation. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with all liberties reserved.

::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:28 :::HCHP 4

8. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court .

shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

9. Registry to immediately send a certified copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P., for compliance.

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.

December 20 , 2019 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:28 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court