Petitioner challenged his bail in an NDPS case involving the transportation of a large quantity of Corex. The High Court denied bail, citing the quantity of contraband, risk of tampering with evidence, and pending trial as grounds.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in custody; Trial Court directed to decide the case expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 614 of 2017 Decided on: 23rd May, 2017
________________________________________________________________ Narender Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
| For the petitioner: | Mr. K.S. Thakur and Mr. Abhinandan Thakur, Advocates. |
|---|---|
| For the respondent: | Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG. |
| ________________________ Chander Bhusan Baro |
_________________________________________ walia, Judge (oral). |
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 24 of 2016, dated 12.05.2016, under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.
11.05.2016, around 07:15 p.m., Incharge Police Post Kuddu
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. UK 07TA-4011, which was being driven by one Shiv Kumar. On checking, there was a carton box, which contained prohibited medicine Corex. The said carton box contained four plastic packets and each contained 25 vials and one more plastic packet contained 10 vials of corex. In total, 110 vials of Corex were recovered. The said Shiv Kumar could not produce any valid document for possessing the contraband. During the course of investigation said Shiv Kumar divulged that he brought the said contraband from Uttrakhand, Parola, with his friends (accomplices) Narinder @ Titu (petitioner herein) and Sikander @ Sikki in vehicle bearing registration No. HP10B-2929. He has further divulged that before Kuddu barrier they shifted the contraband in vehicle bearing registration No. UK 07TA-4011. Police registered an FIR and started the investigation. As per the prosecution, accused Narinder @ Titu and Sikander @ Sikki after committing the crime fled away. On 03.06.2016, the petitioner surrendered before the police and he was arrested. Another accused, Sikander @ Sikki, participated in the investigation and he was arrested on 27.05.2016. The police, after completing the investigation, presented the challan in the Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in transporting a huge quantity of contraband. He has further argued that the petitioner has committed a very serious crime and he may repeat the offence in future also. The trial against the petitioner is pending before the learned Trial Court and some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. He has further argued that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour, thus the petition may be dismissed.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 23rd May, 2017 Judge (virender)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail considering he was charged with transporting a huge quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act during the pendency of the trial?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
State of Bihar vs. Lakhmi Narayan SinghReferred
State of Bihar vs. Lakhmi Narayan Singh
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Narender Singh)
State of Himachal Pradesh)
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
