Sunil And Others vs State Of H.P

Satyen Vaidya, J

Both these petitions are being decided together as these arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of facts and law.

A case under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), has been registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, vide FIR No. 7 of 2023, dated 17. 01.2023 with the allegations that during the intervening night of 16.01.2023 and 17.01.2023, the police party apprehended vehicle No. DL-4CAM-5932 with two occupants namely Monu Jangra on the wheel and Sachin on front passenger seat. One bag was found placed under the driver's seat. On checking the bag, 1 kg., 518 grams of charas was recovered. The case was registered and the aforesaid Monu Jangra and Sachin were arrested.

Petitioners in the instant petitions have approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in the above noted case on the ground that the police is trying to implicate them for ulterior motives. They have played no role in the commission of alleged crime. The police has been investigating the case for the last more than three months but has not been able to collect any legal evidence against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have their respective permanent abodes and have roots in the society. There is no likelihood of their absconding and fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioners have already associated themselves with the investigation and have further undertaken to join the investigation as and when required. Petitioners have also undertaken to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed.

Respondent/State has filed status report. It is alleged against petitioner Sunil that the main accused i.e. Monu Jangra and Sachin were known to the petitioner and had stayed with him at Sainj in District Kullu. It is also alleged that petitioner Sunil had conspired with co-accused Monu Jangra and Sachin and they all had committed offence in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy. As regards petitioner Manish, it is alleged that he was owner of the vehicle from which accused Monu Jangra and Sachin were apprehended with contraband. Petitioner Manish is also alleged to have conspired with co-accused Monu Jangra and Sachin for commission of offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that petitioners are involved in serious offence and they do not deserve to be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

Admittedly, the contraband has not been recovered from the petitioners. Their implication is sought with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

It is trite law that for adjudication of bail plea the relevant considerations are the nature of accusation and material collected in support thereof.

The contents of status report filed on behalf of respondent/State evidently reveal that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners. The investigating agency has placed reliance on the disclosure allegedly made by co -accused and also exchange of phone calls between the petitioners and co-accused Monu Jangra and Sachin. It is suggested by the investigating agency itself that the petitioners and co-accused Monu Jangra and Sachin belong to State of Haryana and were known to each other. In this back drop, it cannot be said that the exchange of phone calls inter se the petitioners and other co-accused was part of conspiracy to commit crime. The disclosure statements of co-accused cannot be used as legal evidence against the petitioners.

Thus, the material on record provides reasonable ground for believing that the petitioners are not prima facie guilty of offence involving commercial quantity of charas. No criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioners and in such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners, if released on bail, will indulge in commission of offence. In the light of aforesaid findings, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be impediment in allowing the prayer of the petitioners.

No recoveries are to be affected from the petitioners as submitted in the status report. The investigation of the case is almost complete. No ground for custodial interrogation has either been propagated or made out. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioners to be kept in custody. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule.

Petitioners have their permanent addresses and are residents of Village & P.O. Rajlu, Tehsil Ghanour, District Sonipat (Haryana) and Drain No.6, Bandepur Colony, Param Hans School Wali Gali, District Sonipat (Haryana), respectively. There is no likelihood of their absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. It is also not the case of the respondent/State that in case of release of petitioner on bail, further investigation or trial of the case shall be adversely affect.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions are allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioners, in case FIR No. 7 of 2023, dated 17. 01.2023, under Sections 20, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P., they shall be released on bail subject to each of them furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, who necessarily should have immovable property in the State of Himachal Pradesh, to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law.

(ii) That the petitioners 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(iii) That the petitioners shall not leave the country without the express permission of the trial Court and;

(iv) Any violation of the conditions of this bail order shall entail cancellation.

However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only.