Davinder Singh vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is in judicial custody for selling psychotropic substance to main accused Karamjeet, has come up before this Court under

Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail on the ground that there is no legally admissible evidence against him.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 1.12.2020 Ld.

Special Judge-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan HP, dismissed the petition because of the nature and gravity of the accusation.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel

for the bail 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 18.9.2020, the police officials received a secret information that one Karamjeet, resident of

Badripur, Paonta Sahib, who is milk vendor, is also involved in the illicit drug trade. The informant further revealed that he was getting a consignment

of psychotropic substance on a motorcycle No.HP-17-A-8677, TVS. The informant further revealed that he has employed one Ashok Kumar to bring

the drugs from Haryana. On this, the police officials associated independent witnesses. In the evening, police stopped that motorcycle, which was

being driven by Ashok Kumar and recovered psychotropic substance, which fell in the commercial quantity. After arresting the said Ashok Kumar,

the investigator also arrested Karamjeet and their interrogation revealed the involvement of the present petitioner. Subsequently, the police arrested

the petitioner and added Section 29 of NDPS Act in the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice

to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to

society.

REASONING:

There are call details between Karamjeet and Davinder, the present bail petitioner. The burden is on the petitioner to come out of the rigors of

Section 37 of NDPS Act, which he has failed to do so at this stage.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under section 173(2) CrPC, copies of

which the accused had duly received in compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld. Counsel referred were neither filed with

the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on

Court's file.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned

above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

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.

In the given facts, the instant petition is dismissed.