Lalman vs State Of H.P on 4 February, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Lalman vs State Of H.P on 4 February, 2021

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2189 of 2020 .

Reserved on: 22.01.2021.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2021.

    Lalman                                                 ...Petitioner

                              Versus

    State of H.P.                                             ...Respondent

    Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1NO For the petitioner: Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Narender Guleria, Mr. Vikas Rathore, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Mr. Gaurav Sharma & Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy Advocates General, and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.






                      THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE





        FIR   Dated            Police Station                  Sections
        No.
        02    31.01.2018       State CID, Bharari, 20 of                      NDPS
                               District Shimla.    Act.

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2021 20:17:13 :::HCHP 2

possessing commercial quantity of charas, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No.818 of 2019, under Section 439 CrPC before this Court, which vide order 26.06.2019, was dismissed.

3. Though, the bail application as well as status report are silent about criminal history of the petitioner, but learned criminal history.

r to counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 31.01.2018, Special Investigating Unit of CID, Shimla was patrolling to detect smuggling and criminal activities. At 4:30 p.m., they received a secret information that one Lalman of Bali Chowki, who is proprietor of Radhika General Store, which is a Kariyana shop at Takoli, indulges in sale of illicit substances.

Police officials associated independent witnesses, reached the said shop and search of shop led to recovery of a carton, from which police recovered charas, which when weighed on electronic scale, it measured 1.128 Kg. After that, the investigator conducted procedural requirements of NDPS act and Cr.P.C and arrested the accused.

::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2021 20:17:13 :::HCHP 3

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of .

guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding

7. to people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

When police searched the shop, at that time, accused himself was sitting there. Once he owned the shop, the burden was upon him to explain the presence of contraband.

This is the requirement of section 37 of the Act for the purpose of bail, but the petitioner has failed to discharge same.

Furthermore, the trial is at the advance stage.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the accused had duly received in compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld. Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State.

Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2021 20:17:13 :::HCHP 4

9. Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, as this Court is not inclined to grant .

bail, on the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused.

10. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. .

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

February 4, 2021 R.Atal ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2021 20:17:13 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court