Rangeela Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2020 dated 02.06.2020, registered under Sections 20, 21, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra H.P.

2 Status report stands filed. Record was also made available.

Petitioner was arrested on 2.6.2020 and since then, he is in custody as an undertrial prisoner.

As per prosecution case, on 2.6.2020 at 1.15 PM police party during patrolling, on the basis of information received from trustworthy Informer about transportation of charas, vehicle occupied by accused persons, in present case, being driven by petitioner Rangeela Ram was stopped for checking and after forming a raiding party by associating independent witnesses, it was searched. During search, a carry bag containing 2.077 Kg. charas, kept under the left front seat, occupied by Lucky Krishan, was recovered, which was taken in possession and seized according to the prescribed procedure. By sending Ruka to Police Station Palampur, FIR was registered and petitioner along with co-accused Lucky Krishan was arrested.

5 As per status report, investigation regarding call details, bank deposits, transactions and transfer and ownership of land etc. was also carried out and on perusal of call details report, accused persons were found to have been talking with each other for number of times, and from bank and land related documents, nothing suspicious was found. State FSL, vide its chemical analysis report, has confirmed the recovered contraband as charas. Challan was presented in Court on 31.7.2020 and now the case is fixed for recording remaining evidence on 19.7.2022 after recording evidence of two witnesses on 26.4.2022.

6 Petitioner has approached this Court earlier also by filing Cr.MP(M) No. 1849 of 2020 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1275 of 2021, which were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh, vide orders dated 11.11.2020 and 27.9.2021 respectively.

7 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is change in the circumstances after withdrawal of previous petitions filed by petitioner for enlarging him on bail as now some of witnesses have been examined and they have stated nothing against him. It has been contended that petitioner, on the fateful day, was going to bring woodcutters (Charani) to his village and co-accused Lucky Krishan, who is neighbour and brother-in-law of petitioner, had asked for lift from him, and therefore, though, they were travelling together, but petitioner was not having any knowledge about contraband being transported by Lucky Krishan.

8 It has been further contended that alleged recovery of contraband has not been effected from petitioner, rather it was recovered from luggage of another occupant of car i.e. co-accused Lucky Krishan and further that two witnesses examined on 26.4.2022 have not brought any fact on record against petitioner in their depositions in Court leading to draw inference that petitioner was involved in commission of offence in any manner.

9 Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has been found involved in commission of heinous crime of such a nature which is not only ruining the individuals, but also damaging the families, society and Nation and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

10 According to respondent/State, petitioner is also liable for transporting the charas along with co-accused Lucky Krishan, whereas claim of petitioner is that Lucky Krishan had taken lift in his vehicle and petitioner was not aware about the material being transported by co-accused Lucky Krishan and further that vehicle involved in the case has already been released by Court in April, 2021.

11 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that complicity of accused only for the fact that he was owner-cum-driver of car is not sustainable and telephone talks, between petitioner and co-accused Lucky Krishan, is not an abnormal circumstance, as regular talking between them is but natural being close relatives and such talks are not reflective to the fact that petitioner was also involved in transporting the drugs recovered from bag of co-accused. He has further submitted that guilt of accused is to be established by prosecution and petitioner is behind the bars since a considerable long time and in aforesaid facts and circumstances, he is entitled for bail.

12 Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, but, without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage.

13 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected;

(vi) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;

(vii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(viii) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

14 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

15 In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

16 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

17 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

Petition stands disposed of.

Dasti copy on usual terms.