Amish Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

An under-trial prisoner, in custody since 7th October, 2020, for selling commercial quantity of Charas to the main accused and subsequently

arrested on the basis of call records, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 13.01.2021,

learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, HP, dismissed the petition.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 25th September, 2020, the Police officials arrested Kewal Raj (A-1) and Kuldeep Singh (A-

2), for carrying 3 kilograms 510 grams of Charas in their vehicle. During the interrogation, they named the bail petitioner Amish Kumar as the person,

who had sold the same to them. After that the police added Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and arraigned the petitioner as accused.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to

the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the police have collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner. He further

argued that the crime is heinous; the accused is a risk to law-abiding people; and bail might sent a wrong message to Society.

The date of recovery from the main accused is 25th September, 2020. The status report reveals that number of calls were exchanged between the

main accused and the accused-petitioner during this period. There is no explanation for such calls. Therefore, the accused petitioner has failed to

satisfy the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As such, this petition is dismissed

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition dismissed.