Narender Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is in custody w.e.f. 3.11.2019, under the NDPS Act, for possessing 1.100 Kg. of charas, has come up before this Court under

Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No.4 of 2020, under Section 439 CrPC before this Court, which vide order 09.10.2020, was dismissed as

withdrawn and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file afresh in appropriate court. Subsequently, the petitioner against filed bail application before

Ld. Special Judge, Solan, however, the same was also withdrawn by the petitioner.

Though, the bail application, as well as status report are silent about criminal history of the petitioner, but learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the petitioner has no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 3.11.2019, police officials stopped and searched a motorcycle, on which, apart from driver,

Hem Singh, petitioner Narender Kumar, was also sitting as pillion rider and was carrying a bag on his lap. On search, police recovered 1.100 Kg. of

charas from the same. After that, the investigator conducted procedural requirements of NDPS act and Cr.P.C and arrested the accused. Based on

these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

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.

The quantity involved is commercial and the burden was upon the petitioner to explain the presence of contraband. This is the requirement of

section 37 of the Act for the purpose of bail, but he has failed to discharge same.

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, as 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, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.