Dabe Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has sought bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2021, dated 27.03.2021, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

Petitioner was arrested on 30.03.2021 in the above noted case on disclosure made by co-accused.

In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 27.03.2021, police party headed by HC Anupam Kumar No.13 had laid “Naka” at place Larji. At about 4.30 A.M, a vehicle bearing No. HP-24B-6994 (Tata Tigor) was stopped for checking. Another vehicle HP-24C-6968 (Pick-Up) followed and stopped behind the Tata Tigor car. Two person alighted from vehicle bearing No. HP-24B- 6994 and ran towards river. Vehicle HP-24C-6968 (Pick-up) was occupied by its driver Vinod Kumar. On search of vehicle HP-24C-6968 “Charas” weighing 1 Kg and 555 grams was recovered. Vinod Kumar was arrested. As per his version, the recovered “Charas” belonged to Ram Krishan and Deep Ram @ Nittu, who were occupants of the car number HP-24B-6994.

Ram Krishan and Deep Ram alias Nittu were arrested on 30.03.2021. They disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dabe Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by petitioner, he had purchased the contraband from Saina Devi on 26.03.2021. The bail petitioner was arrayed as accused.

In the status report filed by the respondent, it has been submitted that after completing the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. on 30.06.2021 and the same is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu for prosecution evidence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

The petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused. In addition, the help of CDRs is also being taken to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

Except the existence of CDRs and disclosure statement of co-accused no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by co-accused cannot be read against petitioner as per mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Further, in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022)2 Scale 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021)4 SCC 1,that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020, passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP(Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”

In Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), accused were ordered to be released on bail by Karnataka High Court in a case registered against them for commission of offences under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. In that case also direct recovery was not affected from the accused person(s) so released on bail. In Special Leave Petition preferred against the order directing the release of accused person(s) on bail in that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Karnataka High Court and one of the contention regarding availability of CDR details of some of accused person(s) was dispelled as a ground to deny the bail to them.

Thus, taking into consideration the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details and the disclosure statements of co-accused, bail cannot be denied to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when another accused Saina Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in the same case on facing similar allegations.

No past history of petitioner regarding his involvement in similar or any other offence has been pointed out, therefore, there is no reason to presume that petitioner, if enlarged on bail, is likely to commit similar offence.

It is not the case of the respondent that in case of enlargement of petitioner on bail, the trial before learned Special Judge shall be adversely affected. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Saroli, P.O. Raila, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P.

In the light of above discussion and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2021 dated 27.03.2021, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, however, subject to following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall regularly attend the hearings of the case before learned Special Judge and shall not delay the proceedings thereof.

(ii) That the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the express permission of the trial Court;

However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only.