Sher Singh vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

On the allegations of joint possession of commercial quantity of Charas along with other two occupants of the vehicle, the petitioner, who is

incarcerating upon his arrest, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a

three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can

directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Chaman Negi, 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 25 th August 2020, the investigator along with other Police officials were patrolling the area

of their jurisdiction. On 11.55 p.m., when they reached at a place Holta, they noticed two vehicles parked near the gate of Wool Federation. The

cabinet lights of the vehicles were switched on. The police officials when asked the occupants of such vehicles the reasons for sitting in the vehicle on

such late hours, they could not give satisfactory reply. It raised suspicion in the mind of investigator and the investigator decided to search the vehicle.

Apart from independent witnesses, the Pradhan of concerned Panchayat was associated, who reached at 12.45 mid night. From the search of vehicle

No. HP76-3352, on the seat, adjacent to the driver accused Sarwan Kumar was sitting, who had kept a bag in front of his legs. On checking the same,

on transparent polythene packet was recovered in which black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found, which prima facie look like

Charas. On weighing the same with the help of electronic scale, it measured 1 kilogram 154 grams. After that the police completed all procedural

requirement relating to this seizure. On the driver seat accused Lal Singh was sitting One person was sitting on the back seat, who revealed his name

as Sher Singh, petitioner herein. The police investigated and arrested these three persons, who presently are in custody. After that the police

conducted search of the other vehicle HP02K-1661. Search of the other vehicle did not lead to any recovery. Based on these allegations, the Police

registered the FIR mentioned above.

Mr. Chaman Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would

cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

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 argument of Mr. Chaman Negi, learned cousnel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was sitting on the back seat and he had no knowledge

about the contrband contained in the bag, which as per the case of the prosecution was with Sarwan Kumar, who was sitting on the front, as such he

be not held accountable for that. This argument is contradicted by the version of the police officials, who said that initially all the occupants of the

vehicle became perplexed. The petitioner did not give any explanation in this regard. As such he has failed to satisfy the rigors of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act.

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

Petition dismissed.