Sunil Dutt vs State Of H.P

@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No. 91 of 2022 dated 1.6.2022, registered at Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”).

The petitioner is facing trial for charge under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act alongwith his co-accused Anand Kumar. The charge against the petitioner and his co-accused is that they were found in conscious and exclusive possession of 2.021 kg of charas on 1.6.2022 while travelling in vehicle No. HP62-2022 on Ghatasni-Barot road.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 1.6.2022. More than twenty one months have elapsed but the trial has not concluded and as such, the constitutional right of petitioner of speedy trial has been violated. It has also been submitted that the case against the petitioner is false. All material witnesses have already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner absconding from the course of justice.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for bail in view of the specific bar laid down under Section 37 of the Act. It has also been submitted that in case of petitioner is released on bail, he may flee from the course of justice. It has also been submitted that out of sixteen witnesses only two are left and others have already been examined.

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

Since learned Special Judge has already framed charges against the petitioner, it cannot be said that prima-facie there is no case against the petitioner. That being so, Section 37 of the Act applies with all force to the case of the petitioner and he cannot be held entitled to bail as he has been found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of Charas.

As regards the delayed trial, nothing has been placed on record to suggest that the trial has been delayed unnecessarily. Rather, it has transpired that after commencement of trial, effective hearings have been held and out of sixteen all witnesses except two have been examined. As reported by the respondent, only two witnesses who are the investigating officers in the case remain to be examined and the next date for the purpose has been fixed on 9.5.2024.

The punishment provided for possessing commercial quantity of charas under Section 20 of the Act is quite severe and the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage, in my considered view, will not be safe, when only two witnesses are required to be examined. There is every likelihood that the petitioner, in order to avoid the punishment, may abscond from the course of justice at the fag end of the trial. In above background, it cannot be said that the trial is not going to be concluded in reasonable time.

In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.