Veena Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 February, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Veena Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 February, 2017

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.193 of 2017.

Date of decision: 23.02.2017.

Veena Devi                                                                 ...Petitioner.

                                        Versus





State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                ...Respondent.

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Vacation Judge.

of Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondent rt : Mr.R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

ASI Roop Singh, P.P., Damtal, Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. present alongwith records.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral ) The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.268/2016 dated 05.11.2016, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 21-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ND&PS Act) and Sections 289, 324 of IPC.

2. The respondents have produced the records of investigation and have also filed the status report.

3. Admittedly, the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls within the definition of "small quantity"

and, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the facts of the instant case.

4. It is vehemently argued by Shri R.S.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is an habitual offender against whom two other cases under the ND&PS Act are already pending. Though, normally this Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:19 :::HCHP 2

would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while considering the bail petition of the petitioner, however, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that even if the petitioner is eventually found to have .

committed the offence in the instant case, her conviction at best shall be proportionate to the alleged offence for possession of "small quantity" and not beyond that.

5. The petitioner is already in custody since 05.11.2016 and, of therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it is not a case where the petitioner can be convicted at a pre-conviction stage itself.

6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, this is a fit case where the petitioner ought to have been released on bail.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.268/2016 dated 05.11.2016, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 21-61-85 of the ND&PS Act and Sections 289, 324 of IPC on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. with the following conditions:-

(i) she shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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) she shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(iii) she 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 - 15/04/2017 21:56:19 :::HCHP 3

(iv) she shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.

Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. is directed .

to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

8. 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 of the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Petition stands disposed of.

rt Copy Dasti.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Vacation Judge.

February 23, 2017.

(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:56:19 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court