Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nitin Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 December, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CRMPM No.: 2038 of 2019
.
Decided on: 24.12.2019
Nitin Sharma ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Nitin Bagga, Advocate.
For the respondent : M/s Dinesh Thakur and Sanjeev
Sood, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Sunny
Datwalia, Assistant Advocate
General.
: ASI Ramesh Chand, IO PS
Dharampur, District Solan
present alongwith record.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Status report has been filed, which is perused and taken on record.
2. By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.' for short), petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 49 of 2019, dated 29.03.2019, registered at ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2019 20:28:31 :::HCHP Police Station Dharampur, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act.
.
3. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2019. He further submits that alleged recovery from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity, which otherwise is also not being admitted by the petitioner, because as per petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that as of now, important witnesses of the prosecution stand examined and no purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He has further argued that in case petitioner is released on bail, then, he shall abide by all the terms and conditions which shall be imposed upon him by the Court, and in case, he violates any of the condition, but obvious, it will always be open for the respondent-State of move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. He has further argued that the petitioner happens to be the local resident of village & PO Sanwara, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP. His parents are also residing in the same village and there is no possibility of ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2019 20:28:31 :::HCHP the petitioner jumping the bail and avoiding the trial. With these submissions, he has prayed for grant of bail to the .
petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the fact that 30.1 grams of Heroin (Chitta) stands recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, the petition be dismissed. Though, he has not disputed the fact that two main prosecution witnesses stand examined by the learned Trial Court, however, he submits that independent witnesses remain to be examined and for the purpose of examination of the said witnesses, now the case is listed before the learned Trial Court on 07.03.2020.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and in view of consideration of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since 29.3.2019, in my considered view, this petition can be allowed at this stage by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioner. As it is not in dispute that two main witnesses of the prosecution stands examined, interest of prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2019 20:28:31 :::HCHP can be well protected by observing that in case the petitioner tends to influence any of the prosecution witness or tries to .
influence the trial itself, then it shall be open for the respondent-State to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 49 of 2019, dated 29.03.2019, registered at Police Station Dharampur, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of /- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.
iii) He shall not 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 the Police Officer; and ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2019 20:28:31 :::HCHP
iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.
.
6. It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 24, 2019.
(narender) ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2019 20:28:31 :::HCHP