Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suryakant vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 September, 2019
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 1737 of 2019
Date of Decision : September 20, 2019
Suryakant
...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. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Ajit Sharma,
Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal
Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the
State.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)
For possessing 24.21 grams of heroin, the petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR Number 56/2019, dated 8.7.2019, registered under Sections 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (herein after referred as the "NDPS Act"), in the file of Police Station, Swarghat, Distt Bilaspur, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 2come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail.
.
2. The status report filed. I have seen the status report(s) as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and the same stands returned to the police official. I have heard Sh. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
FACTS
3. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows:
That on 8.7.2019, a police party headed by HC Rajesh Kumar No.521 and C. Manish Kumar No.193, Police Station, Bilaspur, H.P., was on patrolling duty at RTO Barrier, Swarghat, NH-205. At about 6:00 p.m., one bus bearing registration No. HP-31B-1779, was coming from Chandigarh side which was going to Manali. It was stopped for checking. During checking of the passengers, one boy sitting on seat No.25, got perplexed. On suspicion, when he was asked to stand up, an orange coloured carry bag was recovered from his seat, in which, some substance was found.
On opening the bag, in a transparent polythene, a brown ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 3 coloured substance was noticed, which was in the shape of balls. The substance was weighed and found to be 24.21 .
grams. Thereafter, the other procedural formalities were completed and the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered.
REASONING
4. Keeping in view the quantity of contraband, I am of the considered view that the judicial custody of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever and I am inclined to grant him bail on the following grounds:
(a) As per the FIR, the substance involved in, is Heroin, mentioned at Sr. No. 56 of the Notification, issued under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of NDPS Act, specifying small and commercial quantities of drugs and psychotropic substances.
(b) The quantity of drugs involved is 24.21 grams (heroin), which is less than Commercial Quantity but greater than Small Quantity. As such the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act shall not apply in the present case. Resultantly, the present case has to be treated like any other case of grant of bail in a penal offence.
(c) During Police remand of the petitioner, police got to know that the bail petitioner had purchased this contraband from one Monu from Chandigarh, but he could not recognize ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 4 that person. On inquiry, it was found that there was no person of such name.
.
(d) The petitioner is in judicial custody since 8.07.2019.
(e) The investigation is complete.
(f) As per the Status report, four other cases are pending
against the petitioner, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The quantity of contraband involved is 24.21 grams of Heroin (Chitta). However, no recovery was effected from the personal search of present petitioner.
(g) The petitioner is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of parties. Therefore, his presence can always be secured.
(h) I am satisfied that no purpose will be served if the bail petitioner is sent to judicial custody.
(i) I am of the considered view that, prima facie, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all.
5. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 5 satisfaction of the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge or learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. .
6. This Court is granting the bail subject to the conditions mentioned herein. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions:
a) The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and the petitioner undertakes to appear before the investigating officer as and when directed to do so.
However, whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the accused shall not be called before 9 a.m. and shall be let off before 5 p.m.
b) The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation.
c) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation.
d) The petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever.
f) The petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 6g) In case of the launching of the prosecution, the petitioner undertakes to attend the trial and to appear .
before the Court which issues the summons or warrants and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court.
h) In case, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused of the commission of any offence, prescribing the sentence of imprisonment of more than three years and in case the bail petitioner is arraigned as an accused in any case, under the provisions of the NDPS Act, irrespective of the quantity, be it a small quantity, then within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioner shall intimate the SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR. It shall be open for the State to apply to this Court, for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper.
7. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the petitioner.
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.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP 7Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Copy dasti.
.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
September 20, 2019 (KS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:28:25 :::HCHP