Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing commercial quantity of Charas, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC,

seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 15.1.2021,

Learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, HP, dismissed the petition.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. C.S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 20th December, 2020, the investigator was on patrolling duty to detect crime and obtain

secret information in the jurisdiction of his Police Station. At 3.30 a.m. i.e. intervening night of 19th/20th December, 2020, at Khaladanala bridge, the

police official noticed two persons walking from Shishamati side. The police officials stopped their vehicle and inquired from these persons the reasons

for strolling at such late hours. On seeing the police, they became perplexed. One person was carrying a hand bag, who tried to conceal it behind him.

It raised suspicion in the mind of the police officials. The police officials inquired from them as to why were they violating the curfew imposed during

Covid-19, but they could not give any satisfactory reply. The person holding the bag revealed his name as Inder Dev and other person with him was

Sanjeev Kumar, the petitioner herein. From the bag of Inder Dev, the police recovered Charas, which when weighed measured 1 kilogram 855 grams.

Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is maiden offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave

injustice to the petitioner and his family. He further argued that during the interrogation, the main accused had revealed the name of one Manjeet, who

stands released on bail, as such he be also given bail.

On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the

co-accused. Another argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a

wrong message to society.

The petitioner is seeking bail on two grounds. Firstly, the recovery was from the co-accused and secondly, in the interrogation the main accused had

named one Manjeet as the seller and the said Manjeet stddo released on bail.

The answer to the first argument is that as per the status report, both these persons were strolling in the mid-night during curfew hours and on

seeing the police they became perplexed. There is no explanation why did the petitioner also become perplexed on seeing the Police. As such on this

ground alone, he is not entitled to bail.

As far as second ground of bail to accused Manjeet is concerned, the status report reveals that Manjeet was found to be aged 16 years and thus

has been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Manjeet was released on bail due to statutory requirement. As such, the petitoner is

not entitiled to buy this arguments.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. Therefore the

petition is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.