Ankit vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.' for short), petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 07 of 2020, dated 10.01.2020, registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, HP, under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to 'ND&PS, Act' for short).

The allegation against the petitioner is that 277.20 grams capsules of Spasmo Proxivon Plus were recovered from the petitioner which were allegedly sold to him by one Dhanpal. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 10.01.2020 and presently he is in judicial custody.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter as he is not involved in the alleged offence. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order which has been passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 270 of 2020, titled as Dhanpal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 06.03.2020, vide which, the co-accused has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned Counsel further submits that challan has already been filed in the Court and no recovery is to be effected at the instance of the petitioner, and in these circumstances, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. She has further stated that the petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed upon him by the Court in the event of his release on bail.

While opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of offence alleged against the accused and the fact that the petitioner hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh, it will not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail as there is each and every possibility that he may jump the bail and evade the trial.

The factum of challan having been filed in the Court and no recovery etc. to be effected at the instance of the petitioner, as of now, however, have not been disputed. The fact that the co-accused already having been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court has also not been denied by the State.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the judgment which has been passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in the bail petition preferred by the co-accused, vide which, said co-accused has been released on bail, in my considered view, it will be unfair on the part of this Court to deny bail to the present petitioner in view of the factual position that the co-accused has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench. As far as the apprehension of the State that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner may jump the bail, can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioner while releasing him on bail. Accordingly, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.07 of 2020, dated 10.01.2020, registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, on his furnishing personal bail bond to the tune of 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/ACJM within a period of two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall 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;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise 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

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

It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.