Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on record. By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

petitioner has prayed for his enlargement on bail, in FIR No.257 of 2018, dated 30.09.2018, registered under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs

& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is completely innocent and not guilty of

the offences alleged against him. He has submitted that in case the bail is granted to the petitioner, he shall abide by all the conditions which may be

imposed upon him.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that taking into consideration the fact that 3 kilogram 104 grams charas

(cannabis) was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, which is a commercial quantity, the petitioner does not deserves to be

released on bail, because it is completely incorrect on the part of the petitioner to submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case. She has

further argued that statements of the prosecution witnesses are being recorded and in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, at this

stage, there is each and every possibility that he may try to influence or coerce the witnesses which shall affect the trial. Learned Deputy Advocate

General also informed the Court that at the time when the charas (cannabis) was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, he ran

away from the spot on a motor cycle and he was evading his arrest and it was with great difficulty that his custody could be procured by the police.

Accordingly, she prays that the petition be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the status report, this Court is of the view that as the allegation against the

petitioner is that he was apprehended with 3 kilogram 104 grams of charas, which stood recovered from his conscious possession, the gravity of the

offence alleged against the petitioner does not warrants his release on bail. The Court concurs with the submissions made by learned Deputy

Advocate General that in the event of the release of the petitioner on bail, he may try to influence or coerce the witnesses.

While declining the request of the petitioner to be released on bail, this Court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, who fled

away from the spot at the time of alleged recovery of the charas from him and further the fact that it was with great difficulty that he could be taken

into custody by the police. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact, as is forthcoming from the status report that the petitioner had

approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and after interim protection was granted to the petitioner by this Court, he did not appear for

investigation before the Investigating Officer and the anticipatory bail application was not argued on merit, but the same was withdrawn on behalf of

the petitioner by the learned counsel.

For the reasons enumerated hereinabove, this bail petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while

deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the

findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.