Abdur Rehman vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in FIR No.75 of 2023, dated 24.3.2023, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station West, Boileauganj, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

The prosecution case is that on 23.3.2023 at about 7:00 p.m, a secret information was received about involvement of two persons, namely, Mohd. Danish and Abdur Rehman (bail petitioner) in business of selling heroin. The information was to the effect that search of these two persons at that time at the described location could result in recovery of heroin. The information was reliable. The police party constituted by the respondent reached the place mentioned in the information. The persons described in the information were found at the spot. Their search was carried out in accordance with law. During the search, heroin weighing 8.14 grams was recovered from the possession of co-accused Mohd. Danish. This led to registration of the aforesaid FIR and arrest of the petitioner and co-accused Mohd. Danish. Investigation was carried out by the respondent. During investigation, accused persons disclosed having purchased the contraband from an unknown person in Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR. The contraband was not recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has been behind the bars for about two months. Investigation in the matter has been completed by the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions of the bail and shall not make any threat, promise or inducement to the prosecution witnesses.

Opposing the bail plea, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the contraband in question was recovered from the possession of co-accused Mohd. Danish. Petitioner was his accomplice & partner in commission of crime. As per the investigation carried out by the respondent, the accused persons intended to sell the contraband. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, however in case the Court intends to grant bail to him, the same be made subject to stringent conditions.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report and the record.

The petitioner is facing accusation of possessing 8.14 grams of contraband heroin. The quantity though falls under the intermediate category, however is nearer to small quantity notified under the Act. The allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved by the respondent, during the trial. The petitioner has spent around two months in custody. Investigation in the matter is stated to be almost complete. The apprehension expressed by the respondent in the status report about the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses and tampering the prosecution evidence can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the mode and manner of the commission of the alleged offences, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. He shall fully cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law.

(ii). Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(v). In case of launching of prosecution, petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

(vii) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR under NDPS Act, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.