Allowed

Aman Verma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jul 2021CRMPM/747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to the petitioner, a 20-year-old resident of Kangra, charged under NDPS Act. The Court held that pending cases do not preclude bail in the current charge, noting the contraband was recovered from a co-accused's house.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and complying with standard bail conditions.

Aman Verma Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 747 of 2021
Reserved on: 8^thJuly, 2021
Decided on: 9^thJuly, 2021

¶3

Aman Verma	….Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ch* *Whether approved for repo*	*ander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.* *rting?¹Yes.*
*(Through video conferencin*	g)
For the petitioner:	Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶4

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶5

The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in case FIR No. 197 of 2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Section 29, 29-61-85 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P.

¶6

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 District Kangra, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.

¶10

Police report stands filed. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as emanates from the records is that on 25.12.2020, around 05:45 p.m., a police team was on routine patrol duty near Indora Modh, where they received a secret tip-off that one Ruby (co-accused) deals in heroin and she operates from her house. Acting upon the secret tip-off, police associated independent witnesses and reached the residence of aforesaid Ruby, where one Aman Verma (petitioner herein) and co-accused Ruby were present. Thereafter, the house of the coaccused was searched and a transparent polythene packet was recovered, which contained some substance, which, on being examined through Drug Detection Kit, was found to be heroin, weighing 86 grams. Thereafter, all the codal formalities were completed. Police prepared the spot map and arrested the co-accused and the petitioner. During the course of interrogation, co-accused divulged that they had purchased the contraband from one Rajat Kumar for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The recovered contraband, on being chemically examined, found to be Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin). As per the police, Rajat Kumar has been booked in another ND&PS case and is in judicial custody. Co-accused Raj Kumar was also arrested in the instant case. As per the police report, five more cases of ND&PS are pending against the petitioner. On 24.02.2021, after completion of investigation, challan stands

¶11

¶12

presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is habitual offender and he deals in illegal sale purchase of narcotics. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra, thus, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. The custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation. She has further argued that co-accused Ruby, from whose house alleged contraband was recovered has been enlarged on bail by this Court, so the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail application. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner

¶15

¶16

was found involved in a serious offence and it is not the first time that he was found illegally possessing the contraband, as five more cases under the ND&PS Act are pending against him, so he is a habitual offender and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

¶17

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of District Kangra. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as the investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, even co-accused, from whose house the alleged contraband was recovered, has been enlarged on bail by this Court and challan also stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition.

¶18

The main thrust of the prosecution, in the instant case, is that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as in addition to the present case, five more cases under the ND&PS Act have been registered against him, so in case he is enlarged on bail he may indulge in similar offence again.

¶19

¶20

Admittedly, five more cases under the ND&PS Act are pending against the petitioner, however, it goes without saying that the cardinal and jurisprudential principle of criminal justice is that each offence has its own severable identity, so, earlier, even if, some/many offences of same nature are committed by an accused, the offence, which is under consideration, cannot be seen with the spectacles of other offences committed/alleged against the accused. Though, the general derivable presumption from the other offences, committed/alleged against an accused, is only that he/she is a habitual offender and that presumption is subtle and only persuasive in nature in adjudicating accused’s offence, which is under consideration of the Court. Certainly, the Courts should not at all ignore such a subtle and persuasive presumption, however, as held above, each offence has its own severable identity, so the Courts should avoid predilection in adjudicating the offence under consideration. In the instant case, as per the records, the alleged recovery was effected from the house of co-accused Ruby and the petitioner was found present in her house, so the argument that the petitioner is a habitual offender and thus cannot be released, has no weight, as the petitioner’s presence in co-accused’s house virtually resulted in a criminal proceedings against him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that even if the petitioner is a habitual offender, but the prosecution cannot fetch any

¶21

¶22

support from his being a habitual offender, as the facts, as emerge, have magnitude to paralyze the argument that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

¶23

Now, adverting to the instant case, this Court at this stage, after considering the age of the petitioner, who is only 20 years old, the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of District Kangra and also considering the facts that investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, considering the fact that the co-accused, from whose house the alleged contraband was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, 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, in case FIR No. 197 of 2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Section 29, 29-61-85 of the ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

¶24

¶25

Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount

¶26

to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove

¶32

are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.

¶33

Copy dasti.

¶34

(virender)

Aman Verma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Verma 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

Akhil Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Jai Parkash Vs State of Hp

Dinesh Sharma Vs State of Hp

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp

Nitish Jamalta Vs State of Hp and Another

Sompal Vs State of Hp