Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.: 102 of 2023 Reserved on : 10.03.2023 .
Decided on : 17.03.2023
Jai Prakash ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram
For the petitioner
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No :Mr. Topinder Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent :Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 129 of 2022, dated 03.09.2022, registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 2'ND&PS' Act), at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of .
the petition are that on 03.09.2022, a case was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 21 of ND&PS Act, on the allegations that the police had received credible information that the petitioner was indulging trade of heroin and in case his residential premises was raided, huge quantity of contraband could be in recovered. After compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the ND&PS Act, independent witnesses were associated by the police and in their presence, the residential house of the petitioner was raided and searched. 62.37 grams of Chitta/Heroin was recovered. The case was registered and petitioner was formally arrested. Petitioner is in custody since then.
3. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he is innocent and has been implicated in a false case. No recovery has been ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 3 effected either from him or the residential premises allotted to his father. It is further submitted that petitioner is permanent resident of Village Jandar, .
P.O. Basantpur, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. Petitioner has also undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him.
4. The prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the petitioner has been indulging in trade of selling contraband to innocent consumers, which is harmful to the society as a whole. It has further been revealed that petitioner was also found in possession of 60 grams of Chitta/Heroin on earlier occasion and a case against him was registered at Police Station Lalru, District Mohali, Punjab, vide FIR No. 12 of 2022, dated 15.01.2022.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 4 General and have also gone through the status report.
6. The status report filed on behalf of the .
respondent-State reveals that petitioner is addicted to consumption of Chitta/Heroin. As per investigating agency, petitioner had purchased the contraband recovered from him from some unknown person. Evidently, this conclusion has been drawn by the investigating agency on the disclosure made by the petitioner himself. The laboratory report also suggests that petitioner had consumed some intoxicants.
7. Even though, the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie suggests that petitioner may be a consumer of intoxicants himself, but it cannot be ignored that the petitioner has been found in possession of 62.37 grams of heroin, which by any standard cannot be said to be a lesser quantity. The small quantity of heroin as per notification issued by the Government of India, under ND&PS Act, is 5 grams and less. It ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 5 is hard to believe that petitioner had kept 62.37 gram of heroin for his personal use. The suspicion against petitioner is further strengthened by the .
fact that he had earlier also been apprehended with almost same quantity of heroin. It prima facie appears that the petitioner is indulging himself in trade of intoxicants.
8. The repeated indulgence of petitioner in the offence under ND&PS Act, that too, substantial quantity of contraband each time is for evident of the fact that he has no respect for the law. Once released on bail, petitioner has again indulged in similar activities.
The drug menace has assumed serious
9. dimensions. The adolescents are the poor victims.
In addition to a law and order problem, it has become a serious social problem. The drug trade needs to curbed with heavy hands. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, he may again indulge in the similar activities and even otherwise, his ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 6 release will send a wrong signal in general masses.
Additionally, it can be seen that petitioner had approached this Court twice in the past for grant .
of bail by way of filing Cr.MP(M) Nos. 2177 and 2760 of 2022 and on both the occasions, petitions were withdrawn. Noticeably, the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier petitions after noticing the
10.
r to disinclination of the Court to accede to his prayer for grant of bail.
It is trite law that successive regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. can be maintained only if there are changed circumstances and such changed circumstances warrant the grant of bail. Reference can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kajad (2001)7 SCC 673. In the absence of the aforesaid conditions, the order granting bail by allowing successive bail application amounts to review of its order by a criminal Court, which is not permissible under criminal law.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 711. In Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
.
"30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duly to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail r to applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duly to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications."
12. No change in circumstances has been shown on behalf of the petitioner.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact situation and exposition of law, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 17th March, 2023 (sushma) ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS 8 .
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 20:34:10 :::CIS