Shreshta Devi vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner, invoking Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has approached this Court for grant of bail in case FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated 14.7.2021 registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’), in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra Himachal Pradesh.

Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.

As per status report, after receiving reliable information from the Informer that co-accused Dinesh Kumar and his mother Shreshta Devi are involved in business of selling narcotic drugs and in case of raid in their house, huge quantity of narcotic drugs can be recovered. After adopting the procedure provided under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, as there was possibility of disappearance of evidence and contraband, house of petitioner was raided after associating independent witnesses in the search and seizure process.

As per status report, Vikas Kumar @ Kaka son of petitioner was found at home and after informing him about information received, house was searched and during search, about 6 grams chitta and 282 grams capsules were recovered. After registration of FIR, on the basis of Ruka, Vikas @ Kaka was arrested. It is further case of prosecution that as per status report, petitioner ran away from her house on noticing the police party approaching her house.

Petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was rejected and thereafter, she surrendered on 7.9.2021 and since then, after remaining in police custody, she is in judicial custody.

6 As per State FSL report, recovered chita was 5.712 grams and total weight of powder of capsules was 235.092 grams.

7 It has been reported in status report that against Vikas, six cases were found registered in the past. Out of which three cases were of offences related to NDPS Act, whereas three cases were found registered against petitioner, out of which two cases were of Excise Act and one case was related to Commission of offence under NDPS Act in case FIR No. 182 of 2017 dated 9.6.2017.

8 It has been further submitted that late husband of petitioner Sardari Lal was also involved in five cases of NDPS Act during his life from 2016 to 2018.

9 As per status report, on 14.12.2022 one witness has been examined and now case has been fixed for recording of more witnesses on 17.3.2023.

10 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a lady and she was not present on the spot and, in fact, she is residing separately from her son in different floor of house and it is not true that on seeing the police, she fled from spot, rather she came to know about implication in the case by police on the basis of recovery of contraband from residence of Vikas, whereupon, she applied for anticipatory bail instead of absconding.

11 It has been further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since last one year and three months and recovered quantity of contraband in present case is intermediate quantity and thus rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not attracted. Further that involvement of petitioner has been presumed by police on the basis of previous case history, whereas, she has nothing to do with the recovery of contraband from her son Vikas Kumar from his residence. It has also been submitted that for commission of offence by her husband or by son, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In furtherance to aforesaid submissions, prayer has also been been made to consider the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. related to women.

12 Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has been found involved in a heinous crime, which is affecting adversely not only the individual, but also the society at large and spoiling the youth of State of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, petitioner does not deserve any leniency and, thus, he has prayed for rejection of bail application.

13 Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances, including period of detention, but, without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage.

14 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make herself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(v) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(vi) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which she is accused or suspected or the commission of which she is suspected;

(vii) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;

(viii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(ix) That petitioner shall not misuse her liberty in any manner.

15 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

16 In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon her, her bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

17 Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

18 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, passing of the order may be verified from the High Court website or otherwise.

Petition stands disposed of.