Allowed

Parveen Kumar Alias Sonu v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Aug 2017CRMPM/977/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a bail application filed by Parveen Kumar under Section 439 CrPC. The court granted bail, ordering the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety, citing changed circumstances regarding the main accused's bail status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety and complying with standard bail conditions.

Parveen Kumar Alias Sonu Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 977 of 2017 Decided on: 8^th August, 2017

¶4

__________________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶5

For the petitioner:	Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent:	Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.
	ASI Satpal Sharma, Police Station, Sadar, District Una, H.P.
_________________________ Chander Bhusan Baro	________________________________________ walia, Judge (oral).

¶6

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. 351 of 2016, dated 29.12.2016, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, registered at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P.

¶7

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

¶8

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶9

¶10

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 29.12.2016, around 5:20 p.m., when police personnel were on patrol duty near DAV School, Una, they stopped vehicle bearing registration No. HP72-2935. The vehicle was stopped and searched. On search a gunny bag was recovered from the vehicle, which contained two boxes of tablets Lomotil and in each of the said box there were 100 strips. Thus, in total 12000 tablets of Lomotil were recovered. In addition to 12000 tablets 20 cartons of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus , each carton containing six strips and each strip containing 24 capsules, in total 2880 capsules were recovered. The driver of the vehicle divulged his name as Surjeet Kumar and he could not produce any valid document for possessing the narcotics. Police took into possession the recovered contraband and also completed all the codal formalities. During the course of investigation accused Surjeet Kumar disclosed that he purchased the said contraband from the petitioner (Parveen Kumar). Accused Surjeet Kumar further divulged to the police that the petitioner himself, in his vehicle No. HP 72A-3308, delivered the narcotics to him at Rakkar. The petitioner was arrested and his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-72A-3308 was also taken into possession. Personal search of the petitioner was also conducted and `19,000/- were recovered from him and he could not disclose the valid source of the money kept by him. Police also collected the call details of accused Surjeet Kumar and the

¶11

¶12

petitioner, which also points out towards the involvement of Surjeet Kumar and the petitioner. The samples from the recovered narcotics were sent for chemical analysis and the reports were obtained. The overall conspectus of the reports reveals that the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity. The prosecution has prayed for rejection of the bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is likely to indulge in such kind of activities again and the petitioner is spoiling the society. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶13

Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the main accused has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court and thus the petitioner may also be released on bail. He has further argued that there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. He has argued that it is still disputed whether the recovered substance was narcotic or not. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that since the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, the bail application may be dismissed.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has argued that the main accused, Surjeet Kumar, from whom the alleged contraband was allegedly recovered on the spot and on whose statement the petitioner was arrested, has been enlarged on

¶15

¶16

bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 792 of 2017, dated 17.07.2017. The learned counsel has further argued that parity may be maintained and as per the prosecution case, in comparison to co-accused Surjeet Kumar, there is no case against the petitioner.

¶17

6 I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail.

¶18

This Court, after going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court (supra) and after going through the record, finds that there is change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier petition filed by the petitioner and the changed circumstances is that the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court has granted bail to the co-accused, who is stated to be the main accused from whom allegedly the contraband was recovered, thus at this stage, taking into consideration the facts that the main accused, from whom allegedly the contraband was recovered, has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police of

¶19

¶20

Police Station Una, District Shimla, in connection to FIR No. 351 of 2016, dated 29.12.2016, under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.

¶21

The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.

¶23

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶24

(iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

¶25

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

Copy dasti.

¶27

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 8^th August, 2017 Judge

¶28

(virender)

Parveen Kumar Alias Sonu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar Alias Sonu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Ia Energy Vs Hem Raj

Lal Chand Vs Birbal

Jeet Singh Vs Nhepc

Sita Devi Vs Shakuntla Devi

H.P.Housing Urban Dev. Authority Vs Kusum Lata

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mohammad Ali Hussain