Nikka Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who was arrested after eight years of registration of FIR and arrest of the other accused, incarcerating upon his arrest, for

possessing commercial quantity of Charas, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.PC, seeking regular bail, on the grounds that the

co-accused who were arrested earlier had been acquitted by a Division Bench of this Court and SLP whereof is also dismissed.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.PC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 14.10.2020,

learned Special Judge-(I) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dismissed the petition because the quantity involved is commercial.

In Para 12 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and

more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the Police arrested Padam Singh, Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar for possessing 15.450

Kilograms of Charas in their car, somewhere on 4.12.2012. The interrogation revealed involvement of bail petitioner, Nikka Ram. However, he

absconded and was fugitive till the end of July, 2020. On 31st July, 2020, he had filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was withdrawn, and on

3.9.2020, the Police arrested him and he is in judicial custody.

Learned 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.

REASONING:

Previously, the petitioner had filed a bail petition being Cr.MP(M) No.29 of 2021, in which this Court had passed the following order:-

 “As far as arguments that Division Bench of this Court acquitted the co-accused in Cr. Appeal No.352 of 2014, Cr. Appeal No.353 of 2014 and

Cr. Appeal No.354 of 2014, titled as Padam Singh vs. State, Ravi Kumar vs. State and Sanjay Kumar vs. State, respectively and SLP against those

was dismissed, is concerned, those people faced trial and were acquitted on merits. The argument that since the persons from whose possession

Charas was recovered were acquitted as such petitioner cannot be convicted, would arise at the time of framing of charges. If the Special Judge

would not find any evidence against the petitioner, then obviously he would not frame charge against him and close the prosecution, but to raise such

argument is not satisfaction of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act because the contraband is commercial quantity. The conduct of the accused to remain

fugitive for eight years itself is a circumstance which prima facie goes against him.â€​

A perusal of the bail petition reveals that charges have not been framed as yet. Furthermore, in case on the grounds of acquittal of co-accused, the

Special Judge does not find any case to proceed further, he would discharge the petitioner and in case learned Sessions Judge does frame charges,

this accused cannot only file bail application but can also challenge the said order if he so desires.

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 and as of now there is no changed circumstance after the order dated 4.2.2021,

as such 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.