Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Raj Son Of Shri Surat Ram vs State Of H.P. ....Non-Petitioner on 30 November, 2016
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 1394 of 2016
Order Reserved on 25th November 2016
.
Date of Order 30th November 2016
________________________________________________________
Hem Raj son of Shri Surat Ram ....Petitioner/Accused
Versus
State of H.P. ....Non-petitioner
________________________________________________________
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
rt __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Negi Deputy Advocate General.
P.S. Rana, Judge.
Order:- Present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 216 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 registered under Sections 20 and 61 of NDPS Act 1985 at P.S. Dhalli District Shimla (H.P.) 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 2Brief facts of case
2. On 9.11.2016 ASI along with HC Satvinder Singh, HHC Ramesh Chand and HHC Satish Kumar were .
on patrolling duty at place Bhatta Kuffer. It is alleged that at about 6.10 in the evening accused came from opposite side along with bag in his hand. It is alleged that when accused saw police officials accused turned back and tried to run away. It is alleged that on suspicion accused was of caught and bag in possession of accused was checked. It is alleged that 590 grams of charas found from exclusive rt and conscious possession of accused. It is alleged that contraband was sealed in parcel and NCB form in triplicate prepared. It is also alleged that site plan also prepared and photographs also obtained. It is alleged that statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded. It is alleged that chemical examination of contraband conducted and chemical examiner has declared the contraband as charas. It is alleged that accused is in judicial custody as of today.
3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 3 General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record.
4. After careful perusal following points arises for .
determination in present bail application:-
1. Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of NDPS Act by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?
of
2. Final Order.
Findings on Point No.1 with reasons rt
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided by learned Trial Court when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner Hem Raj is not required for investigation purpose in present case and petitioner Hem Raj is in judicial custody as of today and contraband recovered is less than commercial quantity ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 4 and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature .
and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of the evidence
(iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) Larger interests of the public or of the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 The rt State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702 Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law. In view of the fact that petitioner is not required for investigation purpose as to today and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 5 in view of the fact that accused is in judicial custdoy and in view of the fact there is no allegation of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and in view of the fact .
that trial will be concluded in due course of time Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail at this stage of case.
7. Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if bail of is granted to petitioner then petitioner will commit similar offence and will threat prosecution witnesses and on this rt ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.
Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to petitioner. It is held that accused has given undertaking that he will not induce and threat the prosecution witnesses in any manner and accused has given undertaking that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon him. It is held that if petitioner will flout terms and conditions of bail order then non-petitioner will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 6Point No.2 (Final order)
8. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
.
read with Section 37 of NDPS is allowed subject to furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 5 lac (Rupees five lacs only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court on following terms and conditions. (i) That petitioner will join investigation of case of whenever and wherever directed by Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That petitioner will attend the rt proceedings of learned Trial Court regularly till conclusion of trial of case. (iii) That petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) That petitioner will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (v) That petitioner will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application. Bail petition stands ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP 7 disposed of. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
.
(P.S.Rana),
November 30,2016(ms) Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:36 :::HCHP