Amit Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sushil Kukreja, J

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case F.I.R. No. 159/2023, dated 11.06.2023, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.06.2023, at about 10:00 P.M., while the police party was on routine patrolling duty and present at Hanuman Chowk, Baddi, they received a secret information that Joban and Amit Kumar, were doing the business of selling heroin and were present at Village Suraaj Maajra Gujjara to sell chitta/heroin and if the bag of Joban was searched, huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. On having received such information, the police associated Ravi Kumar and Parveen Kumar as independent witnesses in the proceedings and left for Village Suraaj Maajra Gujjara, where, near an under-construction building, they saw two persons sitting. On asking, the persons disclosed their names as Joban and Amit Kumar (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the police searched the side bag carried by the accused persons and on opening the same, two transparent polythene packets were recovered, which were containing chitta/heroin. On weighment, the recovered heroin was found to be 7.63 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested.

The bail petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that investigation in this case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner is only 26 years old and if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined.

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. The perusal of the record indicates that the quantity of chitta/heroin, involved in the present case is 7.63 grams, which is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2023 and since then he is behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on bail. Moreover, the chargesheet in the case is yet to be filed and the trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since the quantity of heroin involved in this case is 7.63 grams, which is an intermediate quantity, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case F.I.R. No. 159/2023, dated 11.06.2023, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 21 & 29 of NDPS Act, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that he will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him.

(v) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

(vi) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.