Sandeep vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is under incarceration from 15th Jan 2020, for allegedly hiring accused Balkar and Manjeet Singh for purchasing 1 kilogram and

218 grams of charas, has come up before this Court seeking interim bail to attend the wedding of his sister-in-law Jyoti Rani, which is scheduled to be

held on 20th and 21st October, 2020..

Based on a First Information Report (FIR), the police arrested the petitioner, in FIR No.198 of 2019, dated 30.08.2019, registered under Section 20

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (after now called “NDPS Actâ€), in Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before Special Judge (II), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. However, vide order dated

29.01.2020, the Court dismissed the petition, because, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner could not cross the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act

and the petitioner and the main accused, from whose possession the Investigator had recovered the charas, had made multiple phone calls between

them, which calls immediately preceded such seizure. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No.469 of 2020, before this Court, which was

also dismissed vide order dated 15.7.2020.

FACTS:

The allegations in the First Information Report and the gist of the evidence collected by the Investigator are on Aug 30, 2019, a police party headed

by ASI, was on traffic control duty at Police Check Post, Khwara Chowki, Shoghi. At around 6.30 p.m., one motorcycle came from the Shimla side.

Apart from the driver, it had a pillion rider. The ASI signaled the bike to stop, on which the driver parked it on the side of the road. The pillion rider

had a cloth bag on his lap. The moment the police officer asked the driver of the motorcycle to show documents, the pillion rider opened the bag's zip,

and the Police could notice the charas in it. On this, the Police inquired the names of the driver of the motorcycle, who revealed his name as Balkar,

accused No.1, and the pillion rider told his name as Manjeet Singh, accused No.2. After that, the Police weighed the charas, which measured one

kilogram and 218 grams. After completing the procedural requirement under the NDPS Act and CrPC, the Police sent the ruqa for registration of FIR

and arrested these two accused persons. On the next day, the Police interrogated accused Balkar and Manjeet Singh. During the investigation, both

the accused told the Investigator that Sandeep Kumar, the bail petitioner, a resident of Mohali (Punjab), had hired them to purchase the charas from

one Govind Singh, resident of Kullu. The said Sandeep Kumar had also given the phone number of Govind Singh and his phone number to both these

accused persons Balkar and Manjeet Singh. It transpired during the investigation that there was an exchange of calls between Sandeep Singh, Balkar,

and Govind Singh. The Police obtained a call details record (CDR) to establish its case. After that, the Police started searching Sandeep Kumar and

Govind Singh. On Jan 15, 2020, the Police traced the bail petitioner Sandeep Kumar from Badmazra, Panjab, and arrested him.

I have heard Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocate contends that in the prayer clause of the petition inadvertently, the interim bail is sought for two days, in fact, it is for

two weeks. He states that in covid time, it would be highly unsafe for the petitioner to travel and straightway join the wedding ceremony, putting

everyone to risk and also to join his inmates in prison again putting them to risk.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has no objection, if this amendment is carried out. Consequently, in the prayer clause,

instead of the interim bail for two days, it would be read as two weeks.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General states that since the application is supported by the affidavit of one Vicky S/o Sohan

Lal, Ward 14, Malkhana Patti, Samana, District Patiala, Punjab, as such, there is nothing to dispute the authenticity of the Wedding Card and to cast

aspersion.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, further states that in case this Court grants interim bail to the petitioner then that should be subject to mentioning of the

Aadhar number, Ration Card and other certificates, which the attesting officer may desire, of the petitioner as well as of Vicky S/o Sohan Lal, who

claims himself to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner and he should also stand his surety.

Given the fact, if the petitioner is unable to attend the wedding of his sister-in-law, it would be irreversible emotional loss to him. The incarceration

is pre-trial and not post conviction, as such, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail with effect from the date of

furnishing personal bond in the sum of rupees one lac (INR 1,00,000/-), with surety of Vicky S/o Sohan Lal in the like amount till 30th October, 2020,

4.00 pm. In case such Vicky has no solvency to stand surety for rupees one lac, then the surety bond for rupees ten thousand of Vicky and another

surety bond in the sum of rupees one Lac for any other solvent surety, to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge/Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge/Chief

Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, subject to verification of their Aadhar Cards and other identity documents and also the

following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall undertake to surrender before the concerned prison, from where he is released, on 30th October, 2020, before 4.00 p.m. In case

the petitioner fails to do so, then apart from proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., it shall also be a consideration for any future bail applications,

which may be filed by him.

b) The attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bond, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),

WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).

c) During the period of interim bail, the petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or

indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts

to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) During the period of interim bail, the petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then it shall be taken into account while considering

future bail application(s), if any, which may be filed by him.

The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bond shall explain all

conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Authenticated Copy.