Allowed

Manish v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Dec 2019CRMPM/2193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Cr.PC Section 439 regarding an NDPS charge of poppy straw possession, the High Court granted bail to a 19-year-old petitioner. Considering his age, residency, and lack of flight risk, the court exercised discretion to release him on personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.

Manish Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	Cr.MP(M) No. 2193 of 2019 Decided on: 4^thDecember, 2019
Manish	….Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent

¶3

Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C* *Whether approved for rep*	*hander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.* *orting?¹Yes.*
For the petitioner:	Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Dy. AG, with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Asstt. AG.
	ASI Man Dass, Investigating Officer, Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
____________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowa	_______________________________________________ lia, Judge. (oral).

¶4

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. 73 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019, under Sections 15 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.

¶5

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

¶9

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.10.2019, a police team was checking the vehicles and on routine patrol duty at Ronhat Road, Shillai. At about 11:25 a.m. a motorcycle, having registration No. HP17DT209, was stopped for checking. Two boys were traveling on the motorcycle and pillion rider was carrying a bag on his knees. On being asked as to what is in the bag, they could not give any satisfactory answer. The boy, who was driving the motorcycle, disclosed his name as Tikka Ram (co-accused) and the pillion rider disclosed his name as Manish (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the police associated two independent witnesses and in their presence the bag was checked and yellow plastic bag was recovered, which contained brownish substance, which was poppy straw. On weighment, the contraband was found to be 9.845 kgs. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. The petitioner and the co-accused could not produce any licence for transporting the contraband, so a case was registered against them under the apt Sections of ND&PS Act. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner and the co-accused were arrested. A sample from the recovered contraband was sent for forensic analysis and it was found to be sample of poppy straw. During the course of interrogation, the petitioner and the co-accused divulged that they

¶10

¶11

purchased the poppy straw at Uttrakhand from one Vinod. As per the police, the petitioner is clever person and he is spreading the menace of drugs in the society. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

¶12

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

¶13

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that

¶14

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is only 19 years of age and his custody is not at all required by the police, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may

¶15

¶16

also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶17

In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when his custody is not required by the police and also in the wake of the fact that the petitioner is only 19 years of age, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 19 years old, the fact that he is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that his custody is not at all required by the police and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so 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 petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 73 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019, under Sections 15 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal

¶18

¶19

bond in the sum of `20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in

¶20

the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is

¶21

granted subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities 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)

¶28

4^th December, 2019 Judge

¶29

(virender)

Manish v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

T Banambar Patra Vs State of Hp

T Banambar Patra Vs State of Hp

Vicky Shohal Vs Diksha Devi and Another

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Hp

Jatin Sharma Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Tilak Raj