Sudesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The present bail application is maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No. 06 of 2017, dated 13.09.2016, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as ''the Act"), registered at Police Station, Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 11.01.2017, SHO Raghubir Singh, alongwith other Police Officials was present at Chaura, in connection with the investigation of a case, in the meantime he received a secret information that Sudesh Kumar, son of Sh. Damsi Ram, Village Bada Kamba, P.O. Chotta Kamba, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur, H.P. was going to sell Charas below Block Point, Chotta Kamba. After receiving that information, SHO, telephonically informed Police Station, Bhabanagar and directed them to immediately sent Investigating Officer on the spot, as the place was under the jurisdiction of Bhabanagar, Police Station, the Police Station was far away from the spot and there were chances that the accused may flee from the spot, thus SHO prepared the information under Section 42(2) of the Act and sent it to the Police Station Bhabanagar. SHO alongwith one Sh. Dinesh Kumar, went to the Block Point, Chhota Kamba. When they reached the spot they saw Sudesh Kumar/petitioner was trying to run away from the spot, but he was intercepted by the SHO. The petitioner was carrying a bag, on checking the same, the Charas was found, which on weighing was found to be 240 grams.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he may be released on bail.

On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed serious crime and in fact he is spoiling the atmosphere of new generation and the manner in which the crime has been committed makes it a fit case where the judicial discretion may not be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Police file and relevant record carefully.

Taking into consideration the fact that as per the allegations, the petitioner is not earlier involved in the similar kind of offences, this Court finds that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Kinnaur, H.P. and is not in a position to flee from justice and also not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The interest of justice demands that judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. So, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

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.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti.