Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surender Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 November, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.M.P(M) No.1267 of 2018
Decided on : 5.11.2018
.
Surender Singh .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl. A.G., for the
respondent-State.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the bail/applicant/accused, under, Section 439 Cr. P.C., wherein he seeks indulgence, of his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, whereat, he stands extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered with Police Station, Parwanoo.
2. Upon the afore FIR, a verdict, of, conviction stands pronounced, upon, co-accused Vijender Singh and Amit Singh.
The bail-applicant, along with the afore co-accused, stood 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP...2...
arrayed, as, a co-accused. However, during the course of trial, .
he remained under absconcion, and, upon his surrender before the learned trial Court, he is facing charge for his allegedly committing, the, apt offence. The arraying of the bail-applicant, along with the afore convicts, is, submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, to be in pursuance, of, the afore convicts, rather during the course of their respective custodial interrogation, hence rendering a statement qua the seized contraband, standing purchased, from, the bail-applicant. The afore confession rendered, by the afore convicts, would, gather the firmest formidability, upon, at the stage contemporaneous, to, the seizure memo(s) standing drawn, thereat, too, the afore convicts, also, rendering an alike statement, b) the afore convicts ensuring, the, identification of the place, of, the abode of the bail-applicant, wherefrom they purchased, the, relevant item of contraband, and, with explicit clear enunciation(s) rather occurring therein qua seized contraband standing purchased therefrom, c) in proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr. P.C., against the afore convicts, both making clear echoing(s), that, the seized contraband, stood purchased, by them from the bail-applicant. However, a closest, and, studied perusal of the afore memos, negates the espousal of the learned ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...3...
Additional Advocate General, that, the afore co-convicts, had, .
prima-facie, made the purchase of the relevant piece of contraband, from, the bail-applicant. Further, the effect thereof, is, that the custodial confession, made, by the afore convicts, wherein they name the bail-applicant, to be the person, from whom, the purchase was made, standing prima-facie belied, and, the afore rendered confessional statement, are, prima-
facie, also to be construable to be a sheer invention, and concoction, on the part of the Investigating officer concerned.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "State of Maharashtra versus Kamal Ahmed Mohammad Vakil Ansari and others" in criminal appeal No. 445 of 2013, has in paragraph No. 26, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter:
"26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him- No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shallbe proved as against such person.
Explanation- In this Section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...4...
elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate .
exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).
There is, therefore, a common thread in the scheme of admissibility of admissions/confessions under the Evidence Act,namely, that the admission/confession is admissible only as against the person who had made such admission/confession. Naturally, it would be inappropriate to implicate a person on the basis of a statement made by another. Therefore, the next logical conclusion, that the person whohas made the admission/confession (or at whose behest, or on whose behalf it is made), should be a party to the proceeding because that is the only way a confession can be used against him. Reference can be made to some provisions of the Evidence Act which fullu support the above conclusions. Section 24 of the Evidence Act leads to such a conclusion.
Under Section 24, a confession made circumstances referred to above. Likewise, Section 25 of the Evidence Act contemplates, that a confessionmade to a police officercannot be proved "as against a person accused of any offence". Leading to the inference, that a confession is permissible/admissible under some express provision. Under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, a confession made by a person whilel in custody of ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...5...
the police, cannot "be proved as against such .
person" (unless it falls within the exception contemplated by the said Section itself). The gamut of the bar contemplated under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, is however marginally limited by way of a proviso thereto, admissible, to the extent of facts "discovered" on the basis of such confession(this aspect, is notrelevant for the present case). The scheme of the provisions pertaining to admissions/confessions depicts a one way traffic.
Such statements are admissible only as against the author thereof."
(i) has made expostulation vis-a-vis the admissibility or the relevance, of, custodial confessional statement(s), rendered by the accused concerned, holding therein echoing(s), hence, incriminating other person(s), (ii) trite expostulations occur therein, qua unless, the afore persons against whom culpability is imputed, by co-accused, conspicuously during the course of his/their being put to custodial interrogation, rather standing arrayed as party(s), to, the proceedings. Applying the afore expostulated principle, and, when in consonance therewith, the bail-applicant was not joined as an accused, by the Investigating Officer concerned, (a) at the stage when the relevant proceedings were drawn, at the site of occurrence, (b) rather when the afore convicts, during, the course of their ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...6...
respective custodial interrogation(s), hence ascribed an .
incriminatory role, to the bail-applicant, (c) thereupon when rather in the relevant proceedings, the apt recoveries stood effectuated, under, respectively drawn memo(s), from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the afore convict(s), and, not from the exclusive, and, conscious possession of the bail-
applicant(s), (d) thereupon when hence reiteratedly, the, afore echoing(s) were not made, before, the Investigating Officer concerned, at the time of drawing, of, the seizure memo, (e) and, even with the identification memo, borne in Ext. PW8/A rather also not making a clear disclosure, that, the purchase of the relevant item(s) of contraband, standing made, from the bail-applicant, (e) thereupon there is no occasion to conclude qua the afore rendered confessional statement(s), by the afore convicts, wherein they ascribe an incriminatory role, vis-à-vis, the bail-applicant, hence, prima-facie, holding any elements', of, admissibility or readability.
4. The learned AAG has contended with much vigor that, since, the quantum of the contraband, seized from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the afore convicts, falls, in the category of commercial quantity thereof,hence the ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...7...
statutory regard embodied in Section 30 being attractable, vis-
.
à-vis, the bail-applicant.
5. The instant petition, warrants, an, adjudication being meted, vis-a-vis, (a) the aggregate or the total, of, the banned narcotic substance, rather comprising the apposite parameter, for, making a further determination, qua, thereupon, the purported recovery(ies), from, the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner, being amenable, for, being categorized, as, (a) commercial quantity or more than commercial quantity thereof, (b) AND the aggregate or the gross weight, of, the entire contents, as, carried in the recovered narcotic substance/charas, likewise constituting the reckonable parameter, for making the apt determination, qua effectuation, of recovery(ies) thereof, from, the exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, the accused, being, hence construable to be (i) small quantity or (ii) more than small quantity or (ii)commercial quantity thereof.
6. In FIR No. 14 of 2015, registered against accused/petitioner herein, the FSL concerned (i) has, qua, ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...8...
the quantum, of, 1 kg 954 grams of charas allegedly .
recovered, from, the exclusive and conscious possession of accused Vinender and Amit Singh, has opined, qua the quantity, of, resin in the apt transmitted thereto exhibit, hence, being 19.24% w/w, thereupon, prima-facie, the pure content thereof of, resin as extracted from bulk thereof, rather falls within, domain, of, less than, the commercial quality thereof, (ii) yet the aggregate weight, of, the narcotic substance/charas, as, recovered from the exclusive possession, of, the afore co-accused/convicts Vijender, and, Amit Singh, without segregating therefrom, the pure contents, of, purified resin rather renders, the apposite haul, to fall, within, the domain, of it being construable to be categorized, as, more than commercial quantity, of charas (iii) thereupon reiteratedly also an adjudication, is to be meted qua only any apt pure contents thereof, hence, comprising the apt parameter(s).
7. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, contends, that, with hence cannabis/charas, occurring at serial No.23 of, the table ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...9...
appended, with, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic .
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), and, with a clear, and, candid prescription, borne therein, wherein rather 100g, is specified, as, small quantity thereof, (i) hence, the aggregate quantum only of purified resin, as, borne in the seized bulk of charas, alone, being construable, to be the apt reckonable principle, for making the further determination, vis-a-vis, the narcotic substance/charas recovered, from the exclusive and conscious possession, of the accused, dehors, the total bulk of charas, hence, falling or not falling, within the domain, of, small or more than small or commercial quantity thereof, (ii) specifically, when the table, with, clear explicity hence refers to cannbis, and, omits to make any explicit reference therein, vis-a-vis, the other part of the charas, carried in the seized charas, rather, being also reckonable, nor , with, the total or of the haul or aggregate, being mandated to comprise, the justifiable principle, hence, for making, the apt reckoning qua, the seizure falling, within, the domain of small ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...10...
quantity or more than small or commercial quantity .
thereof, thereupon only the resin content bone therein, rather comprising, the, apt reckonable parameter.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance, upon, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in a case titled, as, Mohd. Sahabuddin and another vs. State of Assam, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 491, relevant paragraph(s) No.11 and 12 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:-
"11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the content of the codeine phosphate in each 100 ml. bottle if related to the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml. would only result in less than 10 mg.
of codeine phosphate thereby would fall within the permissible limit as stipulated in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and 29.1.1993. As rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfied the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance should not be more than 100 mg. of ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...11...
codeine, per dose unit and with a .
concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparation apart from the other condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic practice. Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means 'contributing to cure of disease'. In other r words, the assessment of codeine content on dosage basis can only be made only when the cough syrup is definitely kept or transported which is exclusively meant for its usage for curing a disease and as an action of remedial agent.
12. As pointed out by us earlier, since the appellants had no documents in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule 'H' drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and that too stealthily, it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practice as mentioned in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and 29.1.1993. Therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...12...
if the said requirement meant for .
therapeutic practice is not satisfied then in the event of the entire 100 ml. content of the cough syrup containing the prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants' failure to establish the specific conditions required to be satisfied under the above referred to notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said notifications in order to consider the appellants' application for bail by the Courts below does not arise."
(p.495-496)
(a)wherein it stands expostulated, qua, for the bail applicant concerned, deriving, the benefits, of, notifications respectively issued, on 14.11.1985, and, on 29.1.1993, it being incumbent, for them to establish (a) the ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...13...
twin conditions qua the contents of narcotic substances .
imperatively, not, exceeding 100 mg per dose unit, (b) and with a concentration of, not, more than 2.5% in undivided preparation, and, apart therefrom, the other condition, of, it being evidently transported, only for therapeutic practice i.e. for contributing to cure of disease, also, necessitating, its, imperative satisfaction.
r However, the reliance placed thereupon, is inapt, for the reasons (i) the counsel not bearing in mind the trite factual matrix, as, appertaining to the case supra, as, occurs in preceding paragraph No.10 thereof, wherein, there is a trite display, of the apt recovery, effectuated, from, the accused therein, being vis-
a-vis bottles of Phensedyle cough syrup, whereinwithin existed, hence, 183.15 to 189.85 mg of codeine phosphate, and, each 100 ml bottle of Recodex cough syrup, also, contained 182.73 mg of codeine phosphate, (ii) AND obviously, even after, multiplying the aforesaid quantum of codeine phosphate, as, carried in each 100 ml., bottle(s) of Phensedyle cough syrup, and, of Phensedyl, with the respective numerical strength, of, the respective cache, of, ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...14...
bottles, thereupon, also the level of the banned narcotic .
drug, namely, codeine phosphate, being, in a quantum, whereupon, obviously the carrying thereof, of, even pure contents of codeine phosphate, as, borne in the cache, of, seized bottles, of, Phensedyle cough syrup, and, of Recodex cough syrup, is rendered hence, to fall within the ambit, of, commercial quantity thereof, (iii) hence, in succeeding paragraph No.12, the Hon'ble Apex Court, had propounded that, yet, with a notification of 14.11.1985, and, of 29.1.1993, enjoining upon the accused, to satisfy the aforesaid twin conditions, and, the material thereat also evidently, bearing out, qua its being transported, for therapeutic practice, thereupon, alone all the benefit(s) thereof, being accruable, vis-a-vis, the accused.
Contrarily, obviously the level or extent or quantum, of the pure content, of the banned narcotic drug(s), namely, codeine phosphate, as, carried, in each, of the seized bottles, after, segregating therefrom hence the contents of the other part of the mixture, borne in each of the bottle(s), renders, the, apt quantum thereof, to, fall within small ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...15...
quantity thereof, (iv) thereupon, hence the ratio decidendi, .
propounded, in the aforesaid case, being unavailable for bestowal upon the accused herein, (v) more so when neither the notifications alluded therein, are, espoused hereat, for deriving, the, apposite benefits thereof, nor the twin conditions embodied, therein, are, hereat propagated nor when the extant cache, is, espoused, to be transported, only for therapeutic use, rather is a narcotic drug, than a psychotropic substance, as was thereat. Consequently, reliance upon the case supra, is, inaptly placed. Contrarily, the factual scenario prevailing hereat, is, covered by the pronouncement, made, in E. Micheal's case (supra), given the afore verdict answering with aplomb, the, conundrum qua (a) upon any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance being found standing mixed with one or more neutral substance/s, thereupon for the purpose of imposition of punishment, the pure content of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, alone comprising the apt reckonable parameter, b) AND when hereat, the, resin content is the apposite pure content of psycotropic ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...16...
substance, thereupon the afore pure content, is, the apt .
reckonable parameter, for granting bail .
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also places reliance, upon, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled, as, Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011)4 SCC 441, (i) wherein, vis-a-vis, the seizure of 7.10 kg of opium, as, effectuated, from, the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused therein, and, with its being opined, to contain 0.8% morphine, it standing expostulated qua hence the entire mass or gross weight, of the opium rather being the apt reckoner, dehors the percentum of morphine, occurring therein. (ii) It has also been expostulated, therein that the entire quantity or the gross weight, of the entire ill substance, being rather recknonable, for making the further apt determination, qua whether the recovered substance, hence falling within small quantity or greater than small quantity or commercial quantity thereof. The apt paragraph No.21 of Harjit Singh's case (supra), stands extracted hereinafter, ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...17...
"21. In the instant case, the material .
recovered from the appellant was opium. It was of a commercial quantity and could not have been for personal consumption of the appellant. Thus the appellant being in possession of the contraband substance had violated the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act and was rightly convicted under Section 1018(b) of the NDPS Act. The instant case squarely falls under clause (a) of Section 2(xv) of the NDPS Act and Clause (b) thereof is not attracted for the simple reason that the substance recovered was opium in the form of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy. It was not a mixture of opium with any other neutral substance. There was no preparation to produce any new substance from the said coagulated juice. For the purpose of imposition of punishment if the quantity of morphine in opium is taken as a decisive factor, Entry No.92 becomes totally redundant. Thus, as the case falls under clause (a) of Section 2(xv), no further consideration ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...18...
is required on the issue. More so, .
opium derivatives have to be dealt with under Entry No.93, so in case of pure opium falling under clause (a) of Section 2(xv), determination of the quantity of morphine is not required. Entry No.92 is exclusively applicable for ascertaining whether the quantity of opium falls within the category of small quantity or commercial quantity."
(iii) Though evidently, the seized contraband i.e. opium, did, contain some per centum of morphine, yet therein, it, has also been propounded, that the existence, of, some per centum of morphine therein, being an irrelevant factor, for determining qua hence the substance or contraband seized, from, the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused therein, being construable to be opium, rather the entire quantum, of, the narcotic drug or substance, as, recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused therein, being the solitary apt determinant,
(iii) thereupon also the aforesaid, expostulation, does not give any leverage to the espousal, of, the counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...19...
bail applicants, rather contrarily support therefrom, is, .
derived by the State, for contending that the gross weight or the aggregate, of the entire contraband, borne in the apt narcotic substances, as recovered, from the conscious and exclusive possession, of the accused, being, the only recknonable factor, for making the apt determination.
10. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits, that with notification bearing S.O.2941(E) of 18.11.2009 whereunder Note 4 in the table, at the end of Note 3, is added, (i) with a prescription therein, qua the quantum or the level of presence, of, the pure banned narcotic drug, in, the seized cache, being the singular, reckonable parameter, for making an apt determination, of, quantification thereof, thereupon, the espousal addressed before this Court, by the counsel for the petitioners, hence, rather warranting rejection. The aforesaid submission, is anvilled, upon, a verdict pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cr.
Appeal No. 722 of 2017, titled as Hira Singh & Anr.
vs. Union of India, decided on 3.07.2017, whereunder, the hereinafter extracted questions, stand referred, for ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...20...
determination, by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex .
Court, and, more particularly with the apt reference, appertaining, vis-a-vis, the legal expostulation settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in E. Micheal Raj's case (supra), being or not being per incuriam, vis-a-vis, the notification of 19.10.2001, rather hence awaiting rendition thereon, thereupon, the benefits of all the trite expostulations, borne in, E. Micheal Raj's Case (supra) being not affordable, to the bail petitioners, "(a) Whether the decision in this Court in E. Micheal Raj (supra) requires reconsideration having omitted to take note of entry No.239 and Note 2(two) of the notification dated 19.10.2001 as also the interplay of other provisions of the Act with Section 21?
(b) Does the impugned notification issued by the Central Government entail the redefining the parameters ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...21...
for constituting an offence and more .
particularly for awarding punishment?
(c) Does the Act envisage that the
mixture of narcotic drug and seized
material/substance should be
considered as a preparation in totality or on the basis of the actual drug content of the specified narcotic drug?
(d) Whether Section 21 of the Act is a stand alone provision or intrinsically linked to the other provisions dealing with "manufactured drug" and "preparation" containing any manufactured drug?
However, the aforesaid submission is rejected, for the reasons, (ii) qua nowat, with, the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, not making any pronouncement, upon the afore-extracted questions, as, referred thereto, (ii) AND in aftermath, with, the vires of the apt notification standing not upheld nor reversed nor the verdict pronounced by the ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...22...
Hon'ble Apex Court, in, E. Micheal Raj's case (supra), with, .
the afore applied clear expostulations (supra) occurring therein, standing neither quashed nor set aside, thereupon, dehors any apt non-rendition thereon , it is not deemed just, fit and appropriate, to curtail the liberty of the bail petitioners. Paramountly also any benefit, strived to be derived by the prosecution, from, Harjit Singh"s case (supra) cannot prevail, given (a) the reference to the larger Bench, appertaining to not, the, afore verdict, rather appertaining, vis-à-vis, the premier initial verdict rendered in E. Michael Raj's case (supra), verdict whereof is directly attractable, vis-à-vis, the controversy at hand, b) thereupon, till the apt reference made to a larger Bench, vis-à-vis the efficacy of the pronouncement, occurring in E. Michael Raj's case, stands answered, and whereunder the verdict rendered in E.Michael Raj's case is annulled, (c ) thereupto the clout and efficacy, of the verdict rendered in E.Michael Raj's case remains intact, d) AND also only the afore verdicts' efficacy, is to be nowat tested, than, of Harjit Singh's case (supra), efficacy whereof has remained un- ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...23...
referred to the larger Bench, (e) and till the comparative .
efficacies of both, the afore verdicts are determined by the larger Bench, hence it is deemed fit to nowat follow the decision in E.Michael Raj's case (supra). (f) Even otherwise, the trite factum of pure content of the relevant narcotic drug being or not, the relevant apt reckonable parameter, when stands earlier decided in E.Michael Raj's case, by a Bench strength holding a numerical strength co-equal, to the one which rendered, the, subsequent verdict in Harjit Singh's case (supra) (g) and when the afore earlier pronouncement, as made, vis-à-vis the controvery at hand, may prima-facie, on the principle of propriety be binding on the subsequent Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, holding a Bench strength, co-equal to the earlier Bench strength, which rendered a verdict, in, Michael Raj's case (supra), (h) thereupon also till the comparative merit of both the verdicts (supra) are evaluated by a larger Bench, it is deemed fit to follow the initial premier verdict rendered in E. Michael Raj's case (supra).
::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP...24...
11. At this stage, the learned Additional Advocate .
General has placed on record, an order rendered upon Cr.M.P(M) No. 1145 of 2014, by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, upon a reference made to it, by the learned Single Judge, with respect, to the comparative applicability, of, the verdict(s), made, in E. Micheal's case (supra), and, in Harjeet Case, whereon, the Division Bench of this Court, has assigned merit, to the pronouncement made, in, Harjeet Singh case. However, the aforesaid verdict is distinguishable, and, may not be applicable hereat, given circumstances since then up to now, rather begetting an immense change, (i) change whereof stands comprised, in, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hira Singh case, making, the aforesaid reference, vis-a-vis, a larger Bench,
(ii) wherein only the validity of the pronouncement, made in E Micheal"s Case, stands referred for determination, to a larger Bench. Since the reference made by the Hon'ble Apex Court vis-a-vis, the conundrum, wherewith this Court is best, prima-facie prevails, upon, the earlier therewith pronouncement made, upon, an apposite ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...25...
reference, by the Division Bench of this Court, (iii) .
thereupon, before validating the adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is deemed fit, to, await rendition, of, an order by the larger Bench, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, a reference made vis-a-vis it, only, vis-a-
vis E Micheal's case. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and, the bail petitioner is ordered to be released, on bail.
However, at this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that since the presence of the bail-
applicant was procured, only, after his being a declared proclaimed offender, hence there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence, however, the afore apprehension of the State would be mitigated, in this Court, imposes, stringent conditions, upon, the bail-applicant. Hence, the bail petition is allowed, subject to his complying with the following conditions:
(i) that the bail applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with two ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...26...
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of .
the learned trial Court concerned.
(ii) that the bail applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Agency;
(iii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iv) that he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court ;
(v) that he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station concerned; and
(vi) that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody.
12. Any observation made hereinabove, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits, of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP ...27...
case, and, the trial Court shall decide the matter .
uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
Dasti copy.
5th November, 2018 (kalpana) (Sureshwar Thakur), Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2018 22:56:46 :::HCHP