Rahul Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP (M) No. 47 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.03.2024

______________________________________ Rahul	____	_____________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP		… Respondent
______________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	____	_____________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hitender Verm Singhal, Advocat	a a es.	nd Mr. Yug
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Vishal Parmar,	Mr. Add	B.C Verma, Mr. itional Advocate
Generals, with Chauhan, Advoc State. ASI Het Ram Mandi (HP).	M ate, PS	s. Menka Raj for respondent/ Karsog, District
_______________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):	___	_____________

¶4

Bail-petitioner namely Rahul, who is behind the bars since 26.10.2022, has approached this Court in the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 166 of 2022 dated 25.10.2022 registered at PS Damtal, District Kangra, HP under Section 21-61-85 of ND & PS Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act').

¶5

Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/ State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals

¶6

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

¶7

2

¶8

that on 25.10.2022, after having received information that bailpetitioner herein indulges in the illegal trade of narcotics, Police raided his house in presence of independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 12.14 grams of Heroin/ Chitta. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, registered FIR detailed herein above and arrested the bail-petitioner on 26.05.2022 and since then he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him coupled with the fact that there is a delay in conclusion of trial, bail-petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition for grant of regular bail.

¶9

While fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Verma, further states that though an intermediate quantity of contraband has been recovered in the case at hand in the presence of independent witnesses, but there is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail-petitioner had been indulging in such activities in the past and as such, it may not be

¶10

3

¶11

in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that an intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered in the presence of independent witnesses, as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the argument put forth by learned counsel representing bail-petitioner that his client has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶13

Record clearly reveals that the bail-petitioner had been indulging in these activities in the past, as a result whereof, four cases already stand registered against him. Though, having taken note of antecedents of the bail-petitioner, this Court has reasons to believe that the bail-petitioner is a drug peddler, but at the same time, it cannot lose sight of the fact that the bail-petitioner is behind the bars for more than one and a half year. As per information given to this Court, only three witnesses out of 23 have been examined. Since prosecution took almost one and a half year for examining three prosecution witnesses, this Court has reasons to believe and presume that considerable time shall be consumed by the court to conclude the trial. Bail-petitioner has already suffered incarceration

¶14

4

¶15

more than one and a half years and it may not be in the interest of justice to let him incarcerate for an indefinite period during trial, which otherwise would amount to pre trial conviction. Otherwise also, this Court finds that in the event of bail-petitioner being held guilty, the maximum punishment of three years can be awarded, out of which he has already undergone one and a half years during pendency of trial. Apart from above, prayer made on behalf of bail-petitioner for grant of bail otherwise deserves to be considered on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

¶16

Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions.

¶17

Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Cr.MP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 titled Roop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 6.9.2022, also ordered for

¶18

5

¶19

enlargement of an accused, who was allegedly apprehended carrying commercial quantity of Tramadol, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

¶20

Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions.

¶21

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

¶22

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has

¶23

6

¶24

held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

¶25

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶26

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC

¶27

218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶28

7

¶29

13. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis

¶30

Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

¶31

In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

¶32

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶33

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶34

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶35

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶36

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶37

8

¶38

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

¶39

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 order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website

¶40

of this Court.

¶41

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶42

March 5, 2024 (sunil)

Rahul v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shyam Lal S/o Late sh. Dhani Ram Vs Premi Devi

Tirth Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vaibhav Dhalta Vs State of Hp and Others

Baldev Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

Ibrahim Vs the State of Hp and Others