Kalpna vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1 .By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 76 of 2021, dated 06.05.2021, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 21-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as there is intermediate quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner, therefore, she is entitled for bail.

Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is previous history of the petitioner being involved in the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act and two FIRs under the provisions of ND&PS Act have been registered against her, and in case, prayer of the petitioner for releasing her on bail is allowed, there is each and every possibility that she may again indulge in similar activities.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the status report.

It is not in dispute that two FIRs are already registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the ND&PS Act. The factors, which have to be taken into consideration by a Court while adjudicating a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia are (a) gravity of the offence alleged; (b) whether, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to jump the bail, and thus, evade trial or influence the outcome of the same by trying to win over the witnesses; and (c) whether there is possibility that, if released on bail, the petitioner may again indulge in similar activities. Incidentally, all these conditions are independent of each other.

In this case, there is previous history of the petitioner of indulging in activities prohibited under the provisions of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner, while on bail in previous cases registered against her under the provisions of ND&PS Act, has again been found to have allegedly indulged in the commission of the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. In this view of the matter, though the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity, yet, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

The affidavit, which has been filed in compliance to previous order dated 24.09.2021, is taken on record and it is impressed upon the authority concerned to ensure that appropriate applications are filed before the appropriate Court(s) for recalling of the bail orders, in the cases, where the petitioners, after their release on bail, are again found to have indulged in the commission of similar activities.