Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kullu vs Pallulabid Ahmad on 19 May, 2022
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 1082 OF 2022
.
Between:
RAM LAL, S/O SH. LAGAN DASS, AGE
52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KUTWA,
P.O. JAON, TEHSIL ANNI, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
......PETITIONER
(BY MR. SANJEEV BHUSHAN, SR.
ADVOCATE WITH MR. RAJESH KUMAR
AND MR. MAAN SINGH, ADVOCATES)
AND r
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
......RESPONDENT
(MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. AG
WITH MR. YUDHVIR SINGH THAKUR
AND MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY.
AGS )
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 45/2022, dated 02.05.2022, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:13 :::CIS 2
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so .
he be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 02.05.2022, around 1:15 p.m., a police party was on patrol duty, where they received a secret information that Raj Kumar @ Raju is selling charas to some person and if raid is conducted, huge quantity of charas can be recovered from his possession. Accordingly, the police party alongwith the informant left for the place, Kutwa and on their way, associated Rakesh Kumar and Ravi Kumar as independent witnesses. The police sieged the place. Around 4:00 p.m., a person carrying a bag, was seen and when the informant was asked about that person, he identified him as Raj Kumar @ Raju. On seeing the policy party he got perplexed and when his bag was checked, a black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found, which was charas. On weighment, it was found to be 6 Kg 024 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and registered a case under the apt section of ND & PS. Raj Kumar @ Raju was arrested. During the course of investigation, accused Raj Kumar @ Raju disclosed that on 02.05.2022, he got a telephonic call from an ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:13 :::CIS 3 unknown person, who asked for 10 kgs of charas from him. Consequently, he made a telephonic call to Ram Lal (petitioner herein) and asked him to provide charas, but, Ram Lal told him that he can only provide 6 Kgs of charas. Raj Kumar then again .
made a telephonic call to that unknown person and told him that he will sell charas at the rate of Rs 25,000/ per Kg, whereas, he took the charas from the bail petitioner at the rate of Rs. 23,000/ per Kg. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a 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 evidence.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the the petitioner is not at all involved in the instant case and he has been booked in this case on the statement of co accused, only on the basis of call details. He has further argued that in fact the coaccused had to return Rs. 15,000/ to the petitioner. Furthermore, the father of the petitioner has lodged an FIR against the coaccused and this is the only reason that he has named the petitioner in the instant case. So, the present petition ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:13 :::CIS 4 be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following .
judicial pronouncements:
"(1) Special leave to appeal (CRL.) No. 242 of 2022, titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr alongwith connected matter. (2) Cr. MP(M) No. 2436 of 2021, titled Parma Ram Vs. State of H.P. (3) Cr. MP(M) No. 675 of 2022, titled Saina Devi Vs. State of H.P.
6. Conversely, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is found involved in a heinous crime and investigation is still going on and taking into consideration the huge quantity of charas, the bail petition be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court on 27.02.2018 in Cr. MPs(M) No. 98 & 99 of 2018, titled Amru Ram Vs. State of H.P., alongwith connected matter.
7. After carefully examining the police record, two factors have come against the petitioner, the call details, as well as the statement of the coaccused, wherein it has been specifically stated by him that he has purchased the contraband from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 23,000 per Kg and he has to sold the same at ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:13 :::CIS 5 the rate of Rs 25,000/ per Kg and thus the statement is very material.
8. This Court after carefully examining the police record and analysis the law on the subject and after taking into .
consideration the quantity of the recovered contraband, which is commercial quantity, the role of the petitioners in the alleged offence and the fact that the investigation is at initial stage and there is every likelihood that the petitioner may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on bail, finds that present is not a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised. As regards judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Accordingly, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed.
10. However, the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated on its own.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
19th May, 2022 Judge
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:13 :::CIS