Allowed

Mehul Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2023CRMPM/2820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delihi High Court granted regular bail to a young first-time offender accused under NDPS Act for possession of intermediate quantity heroin. The court held that rigours of Section 37 do not apply due to the specific quantity and absence of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing bonds of ₹50,000 each and standard conditions including attendance at trial.

Mehul Sharma Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MPM No. 2820 of 2023 Reserved on: 21.11.2023 Date of Decision: 01^st December 2023.

Mehul Sharma

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Tanta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with H.C. Harish No. 20 P.S. Sadar Solan, H.P.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking

¶12

regular bail. It has been asserted that the police registered an F.I.R. No. 226 of 2023, dated 26.10.2023, against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He is a young person aged about 28 years and he has no criminal antecedents. The quantity of contraband stated to

¶13

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

¶15

have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is intermediate quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to his case. The petitioner was never involved in a similar nature of offence in the past. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court upon him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶16

The State has filed a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 26.10.2023 when secret information was received that a vehicle bearing registration no. HP-07C-0700 was transporting Heroin and in the case of its search, a huge quantity of Heroin could be recovered from it. The information was reduced to writing and it was sent to Supervisory Officer. The vehicle was stopped and searched inthe presence of independent witnesses.6.17 grams of Heroin was recovered during the search. The police seized the Heroin and arrested the petitioner (Mehul) and driver Achal Baragta, present in the vehicle. As per the report of the Chemical Analysis, the Heroin was found to be a sample of Diacetyl morphine (Heroin) weighing 05.894 grams. The petitioner revealed on enquiry that he had

¶17

¶18

purchased the Heroin from one Rohit. Rohit was arrested and is being interrogated. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.10.2023. The investigation is in progress.

¶19

I have heard Mr Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.

¶20

Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court while releasing him on bail. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, which is adversely affecting the young generation. Therefore, he prayed that the bail petition be dismissed.

¶22

I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

¶23

¶24

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the parameters

¶25

for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC

¶26

OnLine SC 1059 as under:-

¶27

12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

¶28

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

¶29

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

¶30

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

¶31

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

¶32

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu

¶33

¶34

Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

¶35

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

¶36

( a ) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

¶37

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

¶38

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)”

¶39

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs

¶40

Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

¶41

7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan

¶42

¶43

Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus:

¶44

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶45

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶46

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶47

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶48

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶49

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶50

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶51

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶52

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’

¶53

The present case has to be decided as per the

¶54

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶55

¶56

The petitioner was found in possession of 05.894

¶57

grams of Heroin, which is slightly more than the small quantity. The petitioner asserted that he had no criminal antecedents and he was not involved in a similar offence in the past. This is not stated to be incorrect in the status report/reply filed by the State. The petitioner is a young person of 28 years and deserves a chance to reform himself and if he is detained in custody for an indefinite period, he will come in contact with hardened criminals and chances of his reformation would be bleak.

¶58

The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Shimla and this fact was not stated to be incorrect in the status report filed by the State. Therefore, there is no chance that the petitioner may abscond.

¶59

The petitioner is in judicial custody, which means that his custodial interrogation is not required. Thus, releasing the petitioner on bail will not adversely affect the investigation.

¶60

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in

¶61

¶62

the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶63

While on bail the petitioner will abide by the following conditions:

¶64

(i) The petitioner will attend the trial on each and every date of hearing and if he is unable to do so, he will seek an exemption from the court by filing an appropriate application,

¶65

(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever,

¶66

(iii) The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and do any other act to hamper the progress of the trial.

¶67

(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the I.O/SHO of the concerned Police Station and the Court.

¶68

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

¶69

¶70

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty

¶71

or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶72

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶73

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may

¶74

be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶75

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 01^st December,2023

¶76

(Ravinder)

Mehul Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Sourabh Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Palmo Devi

Surender Kumar Vs Palmo Devi