Chet Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case

FIR No. 16 of 2020, dated 21.01.2020, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act and Section 39(1)A of the HP Excise Act, registered in Police Station

Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of

the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by

keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 21.01.2020, upon receipt of rukka, a case was registered in Police Station Rampur. As

per the rukka, a police team was on routine patrol duty at place Besdi. Police got a secret tipoff that the petitioner used to sell liquor and charas in his

shop. Acting upon the secret tipoff, police associated two independent witnesses and raided the khokha (kiosk) of the petitioner and recovered three

bottles of country made liquor and some blackish substance wrapped in a polythene packet. Police also recovered a small bottle of Indian made

foreign liquor. The recovered blackish substance was found to be charas and on weighment it was 162 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the

codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Rukka was sent to police station, whereupon a case

against the petitioner was registered. The petitioner was arrested and the recovered contraband was sent for forensic analysis. Upon being chemically

tested the recovered substance was found to be charas.

During the course of interrogation the petitioner divulged that he is habitual of consuming charas and he has purchased the same from some unknown

boy for self consumption. Lastly, it is prayed that in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence

and may also flee from justice. Petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, so his bail application may be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the

police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the

petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He

has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing is to

be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner is not a drug peddler and only a drug addict. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper

with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially

when nothing is to be recovered at his instance, he is not a drug peddler and only a drug addict, so the bail application of the petitioner be allowed and

the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at the instance

of the petitioner, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the fact that he is not a drug peddler and only a drug addict, the

recovered quantity of the contraband, also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage,

the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and also the fact that the petitioner

cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the

petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been

arrested by the police in case FIR No. 16 of 2020, dated 21.01.2020, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act and Section 39(1)A of the HP Excise Act,

registered in Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the

sum of `20,000/Â (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject

to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner 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 such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.