High CourtsSingle Bench

Sumit vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 SHI CK 0023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20, 37
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 413 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

53 paragraphs · 1,046 words

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

1.

Petitioner herein is an accused in case FIR No. 22 of 2021, dated 31.1.2021, registered in Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. under Section

20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) for recovery of 242 grams charas from bag being carried by him,

in the circumstances explained in status report, when on his running back to the bus stand on noticing Police outside the bus stand, Mandi. Petitioner

has approached this Court seeking regular bail.

2.

In the first status report, it was stated that though petitioner is of origin of Nepal, however, on verification of his address, it was found that he had

been residing in House No. 11/5, Sultanpur, Kullu about 5 to 7 years ago as a tenant, but was not found to be residing there at the time of inquiry. In

response to the said report, mother of petitioner has filed an affidavit stating therein that for earning she has shifted from Sultanpur to Naggar (Kullu)

and now their new postal address is c/o Smt. Santosh Kumari TMG Food Corner VPO Nagar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., whereupon

Investigating Agency was directed to verify the claim of mother of petitioner.

3.

After verification of address of petitioner, a fresh status report has been filed stating therein that on verification, Sushma Devi owner of house No.

11/5 Ward No. 5, Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Kullu has verified that petitioner alongwith his parents, one brother and two sisters had stayed as

tenant in her house for 2 ½ years and he had left that house in the year 2011. On verification with respect to temporary address of Nagar, Pradhan

Gram Panchayat Naggar has verified that since last four years petitioner had been residing in Naggar as a tenant of Santosh Kumari and now mother

of petitioner is tenant of Santosh Kumari. Gram Panchyat, Naggar has also issued certificate of temporary address of petitioner’s family.

4.

As per status report, petitioner is also addict of charas and charas recovered from him has been extracted by him from remote areas of Manali and

he has been arrested on 31.1.2021 and after remaining in Police custody, he is in judicial custody. Status report does not disclose any previous

involvement of the petitioner in commission of the same or any other offence.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that quantity recovered from the petitioner is though more than small quantity, but it is only 242

grams, which is much less than the commercial quantity of 1 KG and, thus, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable in present case and

further that in case of release on bail, petitioner is also ready to furnish local surety and to abide by any other condition imposed by the Court.

6.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed grant of bail referring the rise of cases of drug addiction and supply thereof in the society,

especially to the young generation. In response thereto learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecution case is yet to withstand the

judicial scrutiny and before that petitioner cannot be punished without trial by refusing bail, particularly when he is behind the bars since January, 2021.

7.

Considering the nature and gravity of offence, period of detention, all other information and contents placed on record in the status reports and

submissions made on behalf of parities, I am of the opinion that at this stage petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

8.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with two local sureties, as

undertaken by him, in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/concerned Magistrate or Special Court within a period of three weeks from

today and also subject to following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to

overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police

and/or during trial;

(viii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

9.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary

in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or

further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

10.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his 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.

11.

Learned 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 18.03.2013.

12.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the

bail application.

13.

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, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Dasti copy on usual terms.