Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 151/2017 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 February, 2017
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.M.P(M) No. 151/2017 .
Alongwith Cr.M.P.(M) No.194/2017 Decided on: 23.2.2017
1. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 151/2017 Ajay Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
2. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 194/2017 Manush Dutta alias Lavi. ...Petitioner.
of Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
_____________________________________________________________ Coram:
rt Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No (in both the petitions) For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Kush Sharma, Dy. A.G. _________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(oral):
The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.310/16, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, on 27.12.2016, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'ND&PS Act').1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:24 :::HCHP 2
2. The respondent has produced the records of investigation and has also filed the status report.
.
3. It appears that at about 7.00 P.M. on 27.12.2016, while ASI Roop Singh and his team was on patrolling duty at Indora Moar in front of Army gate, then a Maruti car bearing registration No. CH-03X-
of 0661 came from Chatri side, which was signalled to stop for the purpose of checking. Two occupants were rt found to be sitting in the car. Both the occupants frightened and after getting down from the car tried to flee from the spot. Both the persons were overpowered by the police. These persons were none else than the petitioners upon whose search charas was recovered and on weighment it was found to be 500+400 grams = 900 grams.
4. The petitioners approached the Special Judge-II for bail. However, the same was declined on the grounds that since the petitioners are permanent residents of Punjab, there were every chances of their absconding and threatening the witnesses.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:24 :::HCHP 36. The charas recovered from the petitioners was 900 grams, which is far far less than the .
commercial quantity of 20 kgs as prescribed under section 2 (VII) (a) of the ND&PS Act. Therefore, the rigours of section 37 of the ND&PS Act would not apply to the instant cast. Regarding apprehension of the of learned Special Judge about the petitioners' fleeing from the process of law, the same can always be rt ensured by imposing stringent conditions of bail on the petitioners. Even otherwise, in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo pre-conviction custody.
7. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I feel this is a fit case where the discretion of bail can be exercised.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.310/2016, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra on 27.12.2016, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two local sureties each ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:24 :::HCHP 4 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Indora with the following .
conditions:-
(i) that the petitioners 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 of disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(ii) rt that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.
(iv) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner.
9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
Petition stands disposed of.
Copy Dasti.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Vacation Judge.
23.2.2017 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:24 :::HCHP