High CourtsSingle Bench

Sachin Mehta vs State Of H.P

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 SHI CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21, 29 · Public Gambling Act, 1867 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 170 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

43 paragraphs · 840 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

For possessing 8.12 grams of heroin, the petitioner has been made an accused in FIR No.6/2022, dated 05.01.2022, registered under Sections 21

and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar, District Solan. He was

arrested on 05.01.2022 and by means of the present petition, prays for his enlargement on regular bail.

2.

The prosecution case as it comes out from the status report is that on 04.01.2022 at around 10:30 pm, the police officials on patrolling duty, received

a secret information that persons coming in an Innova vehicle described in the information were involved in sale and purchase of heroin. The

information was reliable, therefore, procedure in accordance with law was followed. The vehicle described in the information was intercepted. During

its search, 8.12 grams of heroin was recovered. The vehicle was occupied by the bail petitioner and co-accused Karan Kohli. The recovery led to

registration of the FIR and the accused persons were arrested on 05.01.2022.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR. The quantity allegedly

recovered from the petitioner falls in the ‘intermediate’ category under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation in

the matter is complete. Nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submitted that in case of his enlargement on bail, the petitioner

will not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper the prosecution evidence and will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed

upon him by this Court.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in case the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then the same be made subject to

stringent conditions.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

The quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered in the FIR falls in the ‘intermediate’ category, but is nearer to ‘small’ quantity of

contraband notified under the NDPS Act. The petitioner appears to be a first time offender as the status report does not indicate any criminal record

of the petitioner save and except the FIR registered against him under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gambling Act. Investigation in the matter is stated to be

complete. Petitioner is aged 36 years and is resident of Village Ber Gaon, Post Office Chambaghat, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh,

therefore, his presence can be ensured in the trial. Considering all these aspects and the fact that trial of the case would take considerable period,

further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount

to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii). The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with

the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(v). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in

the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

 (vii). It is made clear that in case the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in future in any FIR under the NDPS Act, then this bail is liable to be

cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. This shall also be considered as a negative factor for

consideration of his future bail application, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter.

Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.