Relu Ram vs State Of H.P.

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 95 of 2022, dated 17.07.2022, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act), at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2022.

It is alleged that on 16.07.2022 at about 8. p.m., a police party spotted one Bhime Ram son of Shri Bodu Ram, walking on the road with backpack on his back near Village Tinder. When the police party asked Bhime Ram to stop, he started running. Police party over powered him and got suspicious. Bhime Ram could not satisfactorily account for the contents of backpack. Police thereafter searched the backpack and recovered 7 Kg. 109 grams of charas. Case was registered and Bhime Ram was arrested.

It is further the case of the police that during investigation Bhime Ram disclosed that out of the recovered charas only 2 kg. 109 grams belong to him, whereas 2 kg. 500 grams each belong to his two associates namely Relu Ram, petitioner and Sunder Singh. Petitioner and Sunder Singh were also arrayed as accused. Petitioner was arrested on 01.09.2022. It is alleged that petitioner had repeated telephonic conversation with co­accused Bhime Ram. Thus, the police has come up with a story that all the three accused persons were to transport the contraband jointly. Accused Bhime Ram was asked to start walking on the pretext that petitioner and accused Sunder Singh were to arrange for a taxi. Before petitioner and co­accused Sunder Singh could join accused Bhime Ram, he had already been apprehended by the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the implication of petitioner in the case is false. Investigating agency has not been able to collect any legal evidence against the petitioner. He is being implicated only on the basis of a statement of co­accused Bhime Ram and also the CDR details which do not relate to the mobile number of petitioner. It has further been submitted that the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented. The trial has already began.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to bail in view of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the accusation against the petitioner is very serious. He has committed a very heinous crime and does not deserve for any leniency.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.

Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to rebut the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that only evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of statement of co­accused Bhime Ram and the call detail records procured during investigation.

As per the dictum of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021)4 SCC 1, the disclosure made by an co­ accused cannot be read against the petitioner.

As regards, the existence of call detail record of accused persons, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022)2 Scale 14, wherein such evidence has not been held to be a circumstance sufficient to hold prima facie case against co­accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the case raised another contention that the CDRs collected by investigating agency does not even pertain to the mobile number of petitioner. It has also been stated that even mobile number attributed to co­accused Bhime Ram has not been found to be in his name. Such factual position has also not been denied on behalf of the respondent.

In the above circumstances, it can safely be stated that the material on record does not prima facie implicate the petitioner. No recovery was effected from him. He is not alleged to be having any past criminal history. In that view of the matter, it also cannot be said that in case of release of petitioner on bail, he is likely to indulge himself in similar offence. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not be an impediment in granting the bail to the petitioner.

Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Jhaniyar, P.O. Nohanda Ropa, Tehsil Banjar, Distt. Kullu, H.P., and there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner may abscond or flee from the course of justice.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, the bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.95 of 2022, dated 17.07.2022, registered under Sections 20 & 29 of ND&PS, Act, at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:­

i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.

(iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial.

Any expression of opinion herein­above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.