Sunil Kumar vs State Of H.P

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

For possessing 176 grams of cannabis, petitioner, is an accused in FIR No.131/2020, dated 22.05.2020, registered under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (The Act for short) at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. He is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties through video conference and gone through the status report filed by the respondent-State.

The gist of the prosecution case against the bail petitioner as it comes out from the status report is that:-

3(i) On 22.05.2020, a police party while on patrolling duty at Nauni Bazar, received a secret information at around 02.10 p.m about one Sunil Kumar (petitioner), selling cannabis in his rented premises. On receipt of such information, requisite procedure contemplated under Section 42(2) of the Act was complied with and search of the rented premises in question was carried out in accordance with law in presence of the petitioner. During search, a black coloured solid substance was found in a polythene packet kept within a plastic box inside a shelf near the kitchen door of the two rooms set rented & occupied by the petitioner. On the basis of experience of the police party and as allegedly confirmed by the petitioner, the recovered substance was determined as cannabis. It weighed 176 grams on digital scale. All Codal formalities were completed, which led to registration of instant FIR.

3(ii) As per the status report, during investigation, the petitioner disclosed that he had prepared the cannabis for self use only. Petitioner had also disclosed that he was in the habit of consuming cannabis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alleged recovery of contraband was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated with the alleged offence. Petitioner is sole bread-earner of a very poor family. He further submitted that the petitioner a local resident of Village Roog, Post Office Deothi Majhgaon, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, will abide by all terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon him in case of grant of bail and that he will not influence the witnesses or temper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner can influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses and can again indulge in similar activity.

Quantity of Cannabis allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is 176 grams. This though falls in the notified intermediate category, but is otherwise slightly more than notified small quantity. Therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the Act will not be attracted. As per the status report, the investigation in the case is complete and the Challan is being presented shortly. It has further come in the status report that during investigation, the bail petitioner had stated about himself preparing the cannabis for his self use as he was a drug addict. The status report does not mention any evidence against him in respect of his involvement in drug peddling. Status report also does not indicate any previous criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. Considering all these aspects and also the fact that the bail petitioner is behind the bars w.e.f. 22.5.2020, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the bail petitioner in custody any further. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.131/2020, dated 22.05.2020, registered under Section 20 of the Act at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. He shall fully cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law;

(ii). Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever;

(iii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

(iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(v). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law;

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any;

(vii) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR under NDPS Act, then his bail is liable to be cancelled and this fact shall also be taken as a negative factor for consideration of his future bail applications, if any. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard; &

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

The parties shall not insist upon for obtaining certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of the High Court. However, the Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties through email subject to furnishing email addresses by them, if so required.