Dismissed¶37

Baldev v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024CRMPM/1921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail application rejected; Section 37(1)(b) twin conditions; commercial quantity; 8.256 kg charas recovery; arrest on co-accused disclosure statement and CDRs; Section 67 NDPS assessment sole prerogative of trial Court; judicial custody 19 months; 16 of 30 prosecution witnesses examined; speedy trial fundamental right; trial to conclude by 31.12.2024; Section 439 CrPC; FIR No.16 of 2023 PS Sadar District Mandi; Cr.M.P.(M) No.1921 of 2024; Justice Virender Singh; High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla; 2024:HHC:8622.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; however, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.2024 and given liberty to prepone the date fixed for 03.10.2024. ¶37

Baldev Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; however, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.2024 and given liberty to prepone the date fixed for 03.10.2024.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Baldev, arrested in FIR No.16 of 2023 (Sections 20 and 29, NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar, District Mandi) allegedly on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement and CDRs, should be released on bail during the pendency of the trial under Section 439 CrPC. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Whether the evidence against the applicant (based on the co-accused's disclosure statement) is hit by Section 67 of the NDPS is the sole prerogative of the learned trial Court and cannot be exercised by this Court at the stage of deciding bail.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the contraband involved falls under the definition of 'commercial quantity', the Court had to satisfy itself that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act were existing in favour of the applicant.

¶29

Key takeaways

The ground that the applicant's involvement was allegedly shown only on the basis of CDRs will be seen during the course of the trial.ratio¶34
Judging the veracity of the evidence already recorded by the learned trial Court, at the bail stage, amounts to interference in the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, to whom assessing the evidentiary value of the statements belongs.ratio¶35
Although speedy trial is the fundamental right of the applicant, the just and appropriate course was to direct the learned trial Court to decide the case expeditiously rather than exercise that right through release on bail at this stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, oral) rejected the Section 439 CrPC bail application of applicant Baldev in Cr.M.P.(M) No.1921 of 2024, decided on 17.09.2024. Baldev, in judicial custody for about 19 months, was arrested in FIR No.16 of 2023, dated 13.01.2023, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., allegedly on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement and CDRs; as per the police version, 8.256 kg of charas was recovered from his possession, a 'commercial quantity'. Counsel urged bail on the grounds of the disclosure-statement/CDR-based arrest and prolonged custody with only 16 of 30 prosecution witnesses examined (next date 03.10.2024); the State opposed, contending the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS were unfulfilled. Holding that with 'commercial quantity' contraband the Court had to satisfy itself that the Section 37(1)(b) twin conditions existed in the applicant's favour, the Court declined to pre-assess at the bail stage whether the evidence was hit by Section 67 NDPS or rested merely on CDRs, treating evaluation of evidentiary value as the sole prerogative of the trial Court whose jurisdiction it would otherwise interfere with. Acknowledging speedy trial as the applicant's fundamental right, it chose expedition over release: the bail application was rejected, and the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.2024, with liberty to prepone the 03.10.2024 date. All observations were expressly confined to the disposal of the bail application and not an opinion on the merits.

¶1

¶2

2024:HHC:8622

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶4

	Cr.M.P	(M) No.1921 of 2024
	Dec	ided on: 17.09.2024
Baldev		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the applicant :	Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate.
For the respondent:	Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,
	Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Virender Singh, Judge ( oral )

¶10

By way of the present application, which has been filed, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), a prayer has been made to release applicant-Baldev, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.16 of 2023, dated 13.01.2023, registered, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2024:HHC:8622

¶14

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS’), at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

¶15

The relief of bail has mainly been sought on the ground that the applicant has been arrested, in this case, on the basis of the disclosure statement, made by his coaccused, as well as, on the basis of CDRs.

¶16

In addition to this, the relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that despite judicial custody, stretching to 19 months, the trial, against the applicant, could not be concluded, in this case.

¶17

3.1. Highlighting the said fact, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, till date and now, the case has been fixed for 03.10.2024.

¶18

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the applicant may be released on bail, by allowing the present application.

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:8622

¶21

4.1. Apart from this, the applicant has given certain

¶22

undertakings, for which he is ready to abide by, in case, he is released on bail.

¶23

When put to notice, the State has contested the prayer, so made, in the application, on the ground that although, applicant has been arrested, under the provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, but, in this case, as per version of police, 8.256 kg of charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant. These facts have been highlighted to show that the contraband, so recovered, in this case, falls under the definition of ‘commercial quantity’ and the twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, have not been fulfilled, in this case.

¶24

5.1. Apart from this, it has not been disputed that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined and now, the case has been listed on 03.10.2024.

¶25

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present application.

¶26

¶27

2024:HHC:8622

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Admittedly, the contraband, which is stated to have been recovered, in this case, falls under the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. Once, the contraband, falling in the definition of ‘commercial quantity’ is involved, in that case, this Court has to satisfy with the twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, that the same are existing in favour of the applicant.

¶30

First of all, coming to the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, qua the fact that the applicant has been arrested, in this case, on the basis of the disclosure statement, allegedly made by the co-accused, it is the sole prerogative of the learned trial Court to see as to whether the evidence, which is against the applicant, is hit by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS or not. The prerogative, which the trial Court is possessing, cannot be exercised by this Court, at this stage, that too, while deciding the question of bail.

¶31

So far as the other ground, that the involvement of the applicant has allegedly been shown on the basis of

¶32

¶33

2024:HHC:8622

¶34

only CDRs is concerned, the same will be seen during the course of the trial.

¶35

As pointed out above, out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 16 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Judging the veracity of the evidence, which has been recorded by the learned trial Court, at this stage, by this Court, amounts to interference in the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, as, it is a sole prerogative of the learned trial Court to see the evidentiary value of the statements, so recorded, before it.

¶36

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in judicial custody for the last 19 months is concerned, no doubt, speedy trial is the fundamental right of the applicant, but, before exercising the said right, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to direct the learned trial Court to decide the case of the applicant, as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

In view of the above, the applicant is not able to make out a case for grant of bail, in his favour, at this stage. Hence, the bail application is rejected. However, the

¶38

¶39

2024:HHC:8622

¶40

learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.2024, in all eventualities. In order to achieve the said deadline, the learned trial Court is at liberty to prepone the date, which is stated to be 03.10.2024.

¶41

Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

¶42

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as, these observations, are confined,

¶43

only to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶44

( Virender Singh ) September 17, 2024 Judge ( Gaurav Thakur )

Baldev v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Gandhi Vs Enforcement Directorate

Netar Singh Vs State of Hp

Nabia Vs Ag

Neeta Ram(deceased) through his legal representatives Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs State

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Ag

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp