Goverdhan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 300/2021, dated 25.09.2021, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.09.2021, around 1:45 a.m., police received a secret information that one Goverdhan Singh (petitioner herein) is coming towards Mandi via Nerchowk Road in his car, bearing registration No. HP­65B­7979, carrying cannabis and if his car is stopped and checked, huge quantity of cannabis can be recovered. Accordingly, police party laid a nakka and around 2:20 p.m., a car of the petitioner was seen coming from Nerchowk side, which was signaled to be stopped. Thereafter, the police associated independent witnesses and in their presence the petitioner was made aware about his rights regarding search. The police started searching the vehicle and when they checked underneath the driver seat, they found three bags. When the bags were opened and checked, a black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found, which on smelling was found to be charas/cannabis. On weighment, the recovered contraband was 2.190 Kg. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and arrested the petitioner. Consequently, FIR No. 300/2021, dated 25.09.2021, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act came to be registered against the petitioner. During the course of investigation the petitioner disclosed that he has purchased the contraband from one Mool Bahadur and was going to sell the same at Pathankot. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and huge quantity of charas was recovered from his possession and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. He has argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and since the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, he be released on bail.

Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and huge quantity of charas was recovered from his possession and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

At this stage, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the role of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence, the alleged recovered quantity of the contraband, which is a commercial quantity, the fact that trial is still going on and in case at this stage petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. So, considering the overall aspects of the case and without discussing them elaborately at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed.

However, the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated on its own.