Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sushil Kukreja, J

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case F.I.R. No. 77/2023, dated 15.03.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Section 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.03.2023, while the police party was on routine patrolling duty and present at Bus Stand Mandi, they received a secret information that some persons, who were residing in a rented accommodation in the house of one Rachna Goel were indulged in selling heroin and if a raid is conducted at their place, huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. On having received such information, the police associated Aashutosh Pal, Manish Chauhan and Aditya as independent witnesses in the proceedings and reached house of Rachna Goel. Thereafter, the police went to the second floor of the said house and knocked the door of the room and one person opened the door. The police entered the room and saw three boys and one girl sitting on the double bed inside the room, who were having one bidi packet, one lighter and one syringe, filled with some liquid substance, with them. On asking, the boys disclosed their names as Arvinder, Puneet Kumar Rana, Lalit Kumar and Sandeep Kumar (petitioner herein) and the girl disclosed her name as Kanta Devi. The police asked the persons sitting on the bed to get down from the bed and when Puneet Kumar Rana got down from the bed, one transparent polythene packet was found underneath him. When the said packet was opened and checked with the help of drug detention kit, it was found containing heroin. On weighment, the recovered heroin was found to be 13.77 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested.

The bail petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that investigation in this case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He further contended that co-accused namely Kanta Devi, Lalit Kumar and Puneet Kumar Rana have already been released on bail by the learned trial Court, as such, the petitioner is also required to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period.

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the petitioner is habitual offender and many cases in past under the NDPS Act and other Sections have been registered against him at different police stations, as such, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. The perusal of the record indicates that the quantity of chitta/heroin, involved in the present case is 13.77 grams, which is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 15.03.2023 and since then he is behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on bail. Moreover, the trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. Furthermore, co-accused namely Kanta Devi, Lalit Kumar and Puneet Kumar Rana have already been released on bail by the learned trial Court, as such, the petitioner is also required to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

The learned Additional Advocate General contended that many cases in past have been registered against the petitioner and is not entitled to be released on bail, as he is a habitual offender. However, this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted, as registration of some cases in the past against the petitioner is no ground to deny bail to him in the present case, as those cases will be decided by the concerned Courts on their own merits. In Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, MANU/SC/0029/2012: (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 382, it has been held that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the bail cannot be rejected as it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since the quantity of heroin involved in this case is 13.77 grams, which is an intermediate quantity, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case F.I.R. No. 77/2023, dated 15.03.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 21 & 29 of NDPS Act, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that he will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him.

(v) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

(vi) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.