Satvir Singh @ Keshav vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 228 of 2021, dated 4.10.2021, under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘Act’), registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 4.10.2021 Inspector Mahinder Singh along with his team was on patrolling duty at Manpura. At around 6:00 pm, when they are at Bhud Bus Stand, they received a secret information to the effect that petitioner, herein, is involved in the business of selling psychotropic pills illegally. The petitioner has worn a white t-shirt and blue jeans and has a polythene envelop in his hand. If the search of the petitioner is conducted, huge quantity of psychotropic can be recovered. On being asked, the boy divulged his name as Satvir Singh alias Keshav (petitioner herein). As the police had suspicion that the petitioner might be transporting some contraband, police checked the box and found 60 strips i.e. 60 x 95 = 5700 LOMOTIL pills. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared and the petitioner was arrested. On being chemically tested, the recovered substance was found to be Diphenoxylate hydrochloride salt of 14.25 GM. Since the bail petitioner failed to produce valid licence/permit to keep the aforesaid drugs, police after completion of necessary codal formalities registered case under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Act against the bail petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was remanded into judicial custody on 9.10.2021 and since then he is behind the bars.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Now the case is fixed for consideration of charge. He has further argued that at this stage keeping the petitioner behind the bars, considering the facts that only intermediate quantity of Diphenoxylate hydrochloride salt is alleged to have been recovered from him, trial is approaching to its logical end and custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petition may be allowed the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in similar kind of case, titled as Harish Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh (CrMP(M) No. 1977 of 2019), where 9420 tablets of LOMOTIL was recovered, this Court has granted the bail to the petitioner.

Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose, moreover the case is fixed for consideration of charge, thus the trial is approaching its final stage. In the above backdrop, the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of the place. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition.

The above case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case Harish Kumar supra. Applying the above law to the facts of this case and also considering the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered in the present case, which is much lesser and intermediate quantity and to give parity to the petitioner, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is required to be released on bail in the instant case, after considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place and also considering the facts that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, his custody is not at all required by the police, considering the quantity of the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in case FIR No. 228 of 2021, dated 4.10.2021, under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner 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 such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.