Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 8]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Paramjeet @ Pamma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 August, 2020

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

                                            1



             HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                        Cr.M.P.(M) No. 468 of 2020

                                                        Date of decision: 24.08. 2020




                                                                                 .
    Paramjeet @ Pamma                                                ...Petitioner





                                      Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                   ...Respondent





    __________________________________________________________
    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge





    Whether approved for reporting1 :
    For the Petitioner:      Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, through
                         r   Video Conference.

    For the Respondent:        Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate
                               General, with Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant

                               Advocate General, through Video
                               Conference.
     __________________________________________________________
    Jyotsna Rewal Dua,J. (Oral)

Petitioner, a lady aged 60 years, has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No. 34/2020, registered on 02.03.2020 at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the Act).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status reports, filed by the respondent-State.

3. According to the Status Reports :-

1
Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2020 20:21:39 :::HCHP 2
3(i) During routine patrolling at Hill Top Temple, District Kangra, a police party observed certain activities of a person as suspicious. He appeared baffled while being questioned and in fact, .
tried to run away from the spot and in that process, cleverly took out something from his pocket and threw it. Whereafter he was nabbed and inquiries were made. He disclosed his name as Sahil, aged 29 years. His search was carried out, in accordance with law. The packet/envelope thrown by him was retrieved, which contained brown coloured substance. The drug detection kit confirmed the recovered article as heroin. It weighed 9.44 gms. on digital scale. This led to registration of FIR against the abovementioned person and he was accordingly arrested.
3(ii) During investigation, Sahil statedly disclosed about procuring heroin from the bail petitioner. According to the status report, the CDR details confirmed that Sahil and bail petitioner were in touch with each other on phone for sale and purchase of heroin. As per the status report, main accused Sahil has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala on 08.05.2020. Challan in the instant case has been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction on 29.04.2020. It has also come in the status report that petitioner has since joined the investigation and is cooperating with the investigating agency. Two cases under the Act i.e. FIR No. 248/2015, ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2020 20:21:39 :::HCHP 3 dated 09.12.2015 (85 gms. of heroin) and another case bearing FIR No. 57/2017, dated 01.03.2017 (22.25 gms. of heroin), both registered under Section 21 of the Act at Police Station, Indora are pending against the .
petitioner. Petitioner was also stated to be involved in some excise matter(s). However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had since been acquitted in the excise matter(s), but for one case regarding which an appeal has been preferred by her and sentence has been suspended in that matter. Learned Additional Advocate

4.

r to General has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required at this stage.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the main accused has been enlarged on bail and also considering the quantity of contraband involved, which is of intermediate category, not attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the Act and the fact that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required, the present petition is, therefore, allowed and the bail granted to the petitioner on 13.03.2020 is confirmed subject to terms and conditions stipulated therein.

However, one strict condition is imposed upon the petitioner that in case she, in future, is found to be involved in any offence under the NDPS Act, then the instant bail granted to her is liable to be cancelled on this count.

::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2020 20:21:39 :::HCHP 4

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made .

above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter.

Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made above.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition any.

r to stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if A copy of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Secretary, be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, if so requested.

    24th August, 2020 (K)                              ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
                                                              Judge







                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2020 20:21:39 :::HCHP