Suhail Khan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sushil Kukreja, J

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case F.I.R. No. 220/2022, dated 27.10.2022, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27. 10.2022, the police party was on patrolling duty at place Dohri Deewar. Around 3:40 p.m., S.I. Gian Chand received a secret information that a vehicle (Wagon­R) bearing registration No. HP­10B­2659 is coming from Dharampur side via Solan towards Shimla, in which there are three occupants, namely Amit Gupta, Ashish Gupta and Suhail Khan (petitioner herein), who are involved in selling of chitta/heroin and if the said vehicle is checked, huge quantity of chitta/heroin could be recovered. On the basis of aforesaid information, police laid a Nakka. The police associated one Ashok Kumar as an independent witness in the proceedings. Around 4:35 p.m., the said vehicle came from Rabaun side and was signaled to stop, in which, there were three occupants, who disclosed their names as Amit Gupta, Ashish Gupta and Suhail Khan (petitioner herein). In presence of independent witness, the said vehicle was searched and when dash board of the vehicle was opened, one transparent plastic pouch, containing light white coloured powder and solid substance, was found. When the said substance was checked with the help of DD Kit, the contraband was found to be chitta/heroin, which on weighment was found to be 6.70 gms. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and arrested the accused persons. Consequently, FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in judicial custody since his arrest. He has further contended that taking into consideration the age of petitioner, i.e. 22 years, if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined. He has also contended that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and as such, his custody is not at all required.

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He has further contended that as the petitioner is habitual offender and similar case has been registered against him in another FIR, i.e. FIR No. 136/2019, dated 01.11.2019, under Section 21 of NDPS Act, he may not be enlarged on bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case and I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, as a perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons has been arrested for possessing 6.70 grams of chitta/heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 27. 10.2022 and since then he is behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee from justice, if released on bail. Moreover, the investigation is almost complete and the chargesheet in the case is yet to be filed, as such, trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude. So far as contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is habitual offender and one case has been registered against him in FIR No. 136/2019, dated 01.11.2019 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, is no ground to deny bail to the petitioner, as the said case shall be decided on its own merits. Therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner, who is only 22 years of age, is kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. Morever, co­accused Amit Gupta and Ashish Gupta have already been released on bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case F.I.R. No. 220/2022, dated 27.10.2022, registered at Police Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS, shall be forthwith released on bail, in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/­ (Rupees fifty thousands), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:­

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that he 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 any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that he will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him.

(v) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

(vi) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.