Allowed

Shubham v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Apr 2023CRMPM/516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the petitioner charged under Section 20 NDPS Act for possession of 114 grams of cannabis. The court held that the quantity was intermediate and Section 37 did not apply, finding the petitioner a fit person for bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of Rs. 50,000.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 516 of 2023 Reserved on: 31.03.2023 Decided on: 05.04.2023

¶4

___________________________________________________________ Shubham ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .…Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Addl. AGs with Ms. Leena Guleria and Ms. Avni Kochhar, Dy. AGs.

¶7

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶8

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case F.I.R. No. 15/2023, dated 28.01.2023, registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, H.P., under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

¶12

28.01.2023, at about 02:05 P.M., while the police party had laid a nakka at place Shalanala, they saw a Haryana Roadways bus, bearing registration No. HR-68C-6719, coming from Manali side, which was signaled to stop. The police party started checking the bags of the occupants of the bus and when they reached near seat No. 42, they saw one person sitting there, who was carrying a bag with him. On suspicion, the police party associated driver Ajeet and conductor Vinod as independent witnesses in the proceedings, in whose presence, the person sitting on seat No. 42 disclosed his name as Shubham (petitioner herein). During search of the bag of the petitioner, a black coloured substance in round shape was recovered, which

¶13

on the basis of experience was found to be charas/cannabis. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 114 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused. Consequently, he was arrested.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶16

contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further contended that investigation in this case is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner, who is only 23 years old and is in custody since his arrest, is required to be released on bail.

¶17

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. The perusal of the record indicates that the quantity of charas/cannabis, involved in the present case is 114 grams, which is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2023

¶19

¶20

and since then he is behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on bail, as he is permanent resident of District Solan. Moreover, the chargesheet in the case is yet to be filed and trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude. Therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since the quantity of charas/cannabis involved in this case is 114 grams, which is an intermediate quantity, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case F.I.R. No. 15/2023, dated 28.01.2023, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., under Section 20 of NDPS Act, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands), with one surety in

¶21

¶22

the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.

¶23

This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

¶25

(ii) that he 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 any facts to the Court or the police;

¶26

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

¶27

(iv) that he will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him.

¶28

(v) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

¶29

(vi) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶30

Needless to say that the Investigating agency

¶31

shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

¶32

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

¶33

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶34

April 05, 2023 (raman)

Shubham v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham 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

Sai Ram Education Trust Vs M.G.Sharma

The Renuka Ji Dam Project Vs Kirpa Ram through His LRs Smt. Belo Devi and Ors.

Pardeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Rajeshwar Singh Mankotia Vs Usha Rani

Suresh Kumar Vs Shiv Kailash

Dev Raj Vs Kaila Deceased through Balak Ram