Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 August, 2020
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 703 of 2020 Reserved on: 26.08.2020 Decided on: 27.08.2020 .
Pramod Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti,
Additional Advocates General with Mr.
r Kamal Kishore, Deputy Advocate
General.
______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The matter is taken up through video conference.
2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 6 of 2020, dated 03.02.2020, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P.
3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 2with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
.
4. Police reports stand filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 03.02.2020 a police team was on patrol/narcotics duty towards the areas of Mehruwala, Bhagni, Shyampur, Maanpur etc.. At about 02:35 p.m. police got a secret tip-
off that one Promod Kumar (petitioner herein), from his residence at Maanpur, deals in sale of narcotic tables and in case his premises are raided, contraband can be recovered. Police associated two independent witnesses in the raiding party and reached the house of the petitioner. Before proceeding further, all the police officials and independent witnesses gave their personal search to the petitioner.
Thereafter, police searched the house of the petitioner and from the dressing table one polythene bag was recovered. The said bag was stuffed with 11 strips of Parvan Spas Plus Capsules (each strip of 10 capsules), 33 loose capsules of Parvan Spas Plus, one strip (eight capsules) of Pyeeon Spas Plus, two strips (each strip of 10 capsules) of Tramadol, 16 strips (each strip of 15 capsules) of Alprazolam, 10 strips (each strip of 10 capsules) of Alprazolam and 43 loose capsules of Alprazolam. The petitioner could not produce any valid permit for keeping such a huge quantity of narcotics. Thereafter, the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 3 opted to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer, so his personal search was conducted in presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paonta Sahib. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal .
formalities. Police prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses and photographed the spot. Police registered a case and the petitioner was arrested and medically examined. After completion of investigation, on 28.03.2020 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and after receipt of forensic analysis report of the recovered contraband, supplementary challan was also present in the learned Trial Court on 27.05.2020. As per the forensic report, weight of powder in Parvon Spas Plus, Pyeevon Spas Plus and Tramadol 200=72.644 grams+4.352 grams+6.560 grams=83.556 grams, Tramadol in Parvon Spas Plus and Pyeevon Spas Plus and tramadol 200=7.1214 grams=0.39928 grams+3.9758 grams=11.495 grams, Tablet of Becalm 0.5 and Alpronof 0.5=27.047 grams+8.072 grams=37.119 grams and Alprazoam in Becalm 0.5 and Alpranof 0.5=0.12282 grams+0.03102 grams=0.1538 grams. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved dealing in selling narcotics to the people, thus spreading the menace of drugs in the society. He has committed serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may also tamper with the prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 4 evidence. Huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, so the bail application may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, .
learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, his custody is not at all required by the police, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was found involved in selling narcotics to the people and thus he is spreading the menace of drugs in the society. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice and there is ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 5 possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.
7. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is .
permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing is to be recovered from him and his custody is not at all required by the police. He has further argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. The learned Senior Counsel has also invited attention of this Court to a judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40.
8. At the very outset, it would be profitable to examine and analyze the above verdict viz-a-viz the present case. True it is that gravity of the offence(s) alleged and severity of punishment cannot be severed and both these parameters run simultaneously. It is also true that while adjudicating bails Courts must presume innocence of the accused and Courts must not shut its eyes to personal liberty of the accused. Personal liberty of an accused should be respected, unless the detention becomes a necessity. This Court also agrees that one of the traits adjudicating bails is "bail is the rule and jail an exception". The above are the well established and accepted golden rules qua bails and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 6 these rules have time and again been reiterated in a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of the High Courts.
However, each case has to be adjudged and decided on its own merits, .
considering the different facets of the case concerned. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and only to secure the presence of the accused for his trial.
9. Despite the above enumerated well established and accepted legal parameters for adjudicating bails, the phenomenon of detention becoming a necessity cannot at all be ignored. This phenomenon of necessity of detention varies, thus each case has to be adjudicated on its own facts and circumstances and the above established and accepted principles relating to dealing with bails cannot impinge the process of examining each case on its own.
Therefore, agreeably, there are certain established and accepted principles for adjudicating bails, but no abstract rule can be adhered to in all the cases. The judgment rendered in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40, which lays guiding and fundamental rules for granting bail, is attracted where the given case falls under those guiding and fundamental rules, but, this Court, after considering all the aspects of the case in hand, is of the view that the present case does not fall into ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 7 those guiding and fundamental rules, hence the judgment (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. At this stage, considering the quantity of narcotics .
recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which is commercial quantity, prima facie the petitioner was found involved selling narcotics to the people, thus actively involved in spreading the menace of drugs in the society, the fact that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, so his detention has become necessity and this Court, for securing his presence for trial, deems it fit not to enlarge him on bail, the fact that he may also tamper with the prosecution evidence in the event of his enlargement on bail, also considering the fact that he may again repeat such offence, if enlarged on bail and also considering different aspects of the case and without discussing the same elaborately, this Court finds that at this stage, the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercise in his favour.
11. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
27th August, 2020 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP