Dharam Singh vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, for possessing commercial quantity of Charas,

has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 1.10.2019,

Learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP, dismissed the petition because the accused is a habitual offender.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Arvind Negi, 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 9th March, 2016, the investigator was conducting traffic checking and for the said purpose,

he had erected a barricade at Giripul in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajgarh. At around 10.00 a.m. one car having registration number of

Chandigarh came from Sanora side and was going towards Solan side. The police officials signaled the driver to stop the Car, which he did. On

inspection of the vehicle, three persons were found sitting therein, two were on the back seat and one was the driver. On inquiry, the persons sitting on

the back seat revealed their names as Dharam Singh, petitioner herein and Ajay Kumar. The driver revealed his name as Baljinder. There was a bag

below the driver seat. On opening the same, it had contraband in the shape of sticks, which, prima facie, look like Charas. When weighed on

electronic scale, it measured 1 kilogram 936 grams. Thereafter the police conducted other procedural requirements under NDPS Act and Cr.PC and

arrested the accused. Based on these allegations, the Police registered 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, learned Deputy Advocate General 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.

The petitioner along with other accused were declared as proclaimed offender whereas Baljinder Singh was convicted by Special Judge vide

judgment dated 13th September, 2017. His appeal against conviction is pending in this Court. Dharam Singh, the petitioner, was declared as proclaimed

offender on 20th September, 2017 and the Police was able to arrest him on 12th September, 2019 i.e. after around two years. The quantity of

contraband is commercial and the accused, who had been a fugitive for two years, is one of the circumstances, which goes against him. A perusal of

the contents of the petition reveals that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and has not made out a

special case for bail.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail. As such, the 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.

Petition dismissed.