Allowed

Rajeev Mehta v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Mar 2024CRMPM/224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act based on co-accused statements and money transfers. Court found the petitioner a drug addict, not a peddler, with roots in society and no other cases, and released him on bail of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail of ₹50,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions on investigation, witness protection, attendance, and travel disclosure.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MP (M) No. 224 of 2024 Reserved on: 26.2.2024 Date of Decision: 01.3.2024.

¶3

Rajeev Mehta ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ . No.

¶6

: For the petitioner Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. : For the Respondent Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered vide FIR No. 266 of 2023, dated 18.12.2023 at Police Station Sadar, Solan,

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

HP. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No recovery was effected from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family having deep roots in the society. He will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶12

The State has filed the status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 17.12.2023 when a secret information was received that a vehicle was parked at Solan-Kumarhatti Bye-Pass road 200 mtrs. ahead of Nature Treat. Two persons were sitting in the vehicle and were in possession of a huge quantity of heroin. Police reduced the information to writing and went to the spot. Sunil Kumar and Sandeep Kumar were found sitting in the vehicle. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 21.03 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants. Sandeep revealed on inquiry that he and the co-accused (Rajeev) went to Chandigarh. Sandeep called Pradeep and Pradeep asked Sandeep to send ₹49,000/- via Google pay number. Sandeep asked his cousin Sanjay to transfer the amount. They purchased the heroin from Pradeep. This heroin was to be sold at Nirmand.

¶13

¶14

Police also recovered two mobile phones and found WhatsApp chat and Whatsapp call in one of the mobile phones. The money was transferred to the account of Jitender. The police arrested Jitender Kumar, who revealed on inquiry that he and Pradeep Narwal were selling and purchasing heroin. Pradeep Narwal used to ask the purchaser of the heroin to transfer the money to the accounts of Jitender. Police also seized the mobile of Jitender Kumar and arrested Jitender. Sanjay Thakur revealed on inquiry that four grams of heroin belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner used to purchase the heroin earlier and transfer the money to the account of Sanjay Thakur. The money was found to be transferred to the account of Ajay and Vikram who were arrested. The bank details were checked and it was found that there were suspicious transactions of ₹31,27,366/- in the account of Vikram. Vikram was also arrested. His mobile phone was checked and it was found that he was in touch with Pradeep Narwal and a huge amount was transferred to his account. Pradeep Narwal was also arrested. Four mobile phones and one vehicle were recovered from him. He revealed on inquiry that he was purchasing heroin from a person known as Doe Harris. He also identified Doe Harris who was apprehended. The heroin was

¶15

¶16

sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and the result confirmed the substance to be Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The petitioner revealed on inquiry that he is a drug addict. Sandeep Thakur used to bring heroin from Chandigarh and he used to pay the money to Sandeep Thakur. He had transferred ₹15,000/- at the instance of Sandeep Thakur. The petitioner also produced his mobile phone which was seized by the police. Hence, the status report.

¶17

I have heard Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶18

Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is nothing against the petitioner except the statement of the co-accused and the transfer of money to the account of co-accused Sandeep Thakur. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is a drug addict and he had asked the co-accused for 04 grams of heroin which is a non-commercial quantity. No other offence has been registered against the petitioner and no useful purpose would be served by detaining

¶19

¶20

the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had transferred money to the account of Sandeep Thakur earlier which shows his involvement. The offence of supplying heroin is adversely affecting the young generation and it should not be viewed lightly. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under:-

¶24

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;

¶25

(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

¶26

¶27

a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

“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

¶33

¶34

consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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] .)”

¶38

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs

¶39

Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

¶40

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 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:

¶41

‘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:

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

As per the status report, the petitioner is a drug addict. He had asked the co-accused to bring the heroin for him. He had also transferred money at the instance of the coaccused. The status report shows that the petitioner is a victim of circumstance and is not a drug peddler. He is a drug addict and had paid money to the co-accused for getting the heroin. As per the status report, the petitioner had requisitioned 4 grams of heroin which is a small quantity. There is substance in the submission of Sh. Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping the petitioner in custody would expose

¶52

¶53

him to hardened criminals and the chance of the reformation of the petitioner would be bleak.

¶54

The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Shimla. This is not stated to be incorrect in the status report filed by the police. It clearly shows that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding.

¶55

Keeping in view the quantity of heroin stated to be requisitioned by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is a drug addict and no other case has been registered against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not justified. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties to the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions:-

¶56

(i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so by means of a written hukamnama.

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶60

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

¶61

(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.

¶62

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

¶63

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶64

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶65

1^st March, 2024 (Chander)

Rajeev Mehta v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Mehta 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

Sanjeev Saini Vs State of Hp

Asam Deen@ Taimu Vs State of Hp

Vipin Singh Vs State of Hp

Jai Chand Thakur Vs State of Hp

Soma Devi Vs State of Hp

Satnam Singh Vs State of H P