Chet Ram vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

An under-trial prisoner, in custody since 24th March, 2019, for possessing commercial quantity of Charas, has come up before this Court under

Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed petitions under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide orders dated 25.6.2019 & 26.8.2019, the same

was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Ms. Ragini Dogra, 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 24th March, 2019, the Police officials of the above mentioned Police Station had erected a

barricade at Bhindi Bypass road at Bajaura. At 6.50 a.m. one vehicle came from the side of Bajaura. The investigator signaled the same to stop. Only

the driver was sitting in the vehicle. On inquiry he became perplexed and his face got furious and enraged. It raised suspicion and the police tried to

associate independent witnesses, but could not do so. Subsequently, they conducted the search of the vehicle. On the back side of the driving seat,

there was a bag, which when opened had another cloth parcel and it had substance in the shape of sticks, which prima facie appeared to be charas,

which when weighed on electronic scale measured 1 kilogram 900 grams. Thereafter the police conducted other procedural requirements under

NDPS Act and Cr.PC and arrested the accused. The laboratory also tested the same as Charas. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the

FIR mentioned above.

Mr. Rajeev Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate argued that incarceration before the proof of guilt would

cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Deputy 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.

Mr. Rajeev Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate argued that the petitioner is in Jail for the one year and ten

months. He further argued that no independent witness was associated whereas the spot was National Highway and time was 6.50 a.m., therefore,

the police had sufficient time to associate independent witness. It seems that they intentionally do so because nothing happened on the spot. Although

these arguments are impressive, but still, it fails to cross 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.