Dharamveer vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is in custody under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), w.e.f. 10.06.2019 for possessing

1.68 Kg. of charas, has now come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a

three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can

directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

In Para 5 (V) of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of

the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 10.06.2019, police officials were patrolling in the jurisdiction of aforementioned police station

and noticed one person. On seeing the police, he instantly threw the rucksack and started working fast. It raised suspicion in the mind of investigator

and on search, police recovered 1.68 Kg. of charas. On inquiry the person revealed his name as Dharamvir, petitioner. After that, the investigator

conducted procedural requirements of NDPS act and Cr.P.C. 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, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. 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 quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner is commercial and as such, he has failed to make of the case for grant of bail.

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.

The petition is dismissed.