Rajiv Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

An under-trial prisoner, in custody since 30th August, 2020, for possessing commercial quantity of Charas, has come up before this Court under

Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 23.09.2020,

learned Special Judge, Mandi, HP, dismissed the petition.

In Para 6 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 29th August, 2020, the Police officials were on patrolling within their jurisdiction and had

erected a barricade at Kufardhar. At 9.30 p.m. one Car came from the side of Tikkan. The police officials signaled the Car to stop, on which the

driver parked the Car on the side of the road. Only driver was sitting in the Car. On inquiry he told his name as Rajiv Kumar, petitioner herein. The

police officials asked him to show the documents of the vehicle. When he opened the dashboard to take out the documents, then along with the

documents one cloth parcel fell down in the Car. The police officials inquired about this parcel, then he became perplexed. It raised suspicion in the

mind of the police officials. Since it was night time and they could not find independent witness, therefore, the police officials checked the same. It had

Charas in it and when weighed on electronic scale it measured 1 kilogram and 115 grams. Thereafter the police arrested the accused and conducted

other procedural requirements under NDPS Act and Cr.PC.

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the

petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the police have collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner. He further

argued that the crime is heinous; the accused is a risk to law-abiding people; and bail might sent a wrong message to Society.

Although the independent witnesses were not associated probably because of non-availability, yet the burden is on the petitioner to make out the

case for grant of bail, which he failed to do. As such, this petition is dismissed

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 dismissed.