Surinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner herein has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 81 of 2020, dated 23.6.2020, registered in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 21, 22 and 29-61-85 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred as "NDPS Act" for short).

On the first date of hearing on 28.8.2020, ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

In response, State has filed status report. In addition thereto, under instructions of SI Ramesh Chand, Police Station, Damtal, learned Deputy Advocate General, has submitted that earlier also petitioner had approached this High Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by filing Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1314 of 2020, which was listed before Single Bench-4 of this High Court on 7.8.2020 and on that date, anticipatory bail was granted in his favour. However, the said petition was dismissed by the said Court on 13.8.2020 with observation that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary.

It is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that aforesaid material and relevant information has not only been withheld, but petitioner has also made false averments in the petition duly supported by his affidavit, particularly in para 10 of the petition, stating that he has not filed any other bail application on the same ground earlier before this Court or any other Court. This petition as well as affidavit have been duly signed by petitioner.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that filing of earlier bail application by the petitioner and decision thereof by this High Court was never disclosed or intimated to him by the petitioner and, therefore, he is also feeling embarrassed and humiliated and thus he intends to withdraw his Power of Attorney for the petitioner in the present case and he has prayed accordingly.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw his Power of Attorney, as petitioner is not present in person, as informed by the counsel.

Issue of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner already stands determined by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby it was concluded that keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner and his purported involvement in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation was necessary. Therefore, present petition, not only for absence of the petitioner, but also for adjudication of earlier bail petition and filing false affidavit, deserves to be dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances stated supra petitioner deserves to be dealt with for his conduct in accordance with law. Therefore, Registrar General of this Court is directed to take appropriate steps to initiate action/proceedings against the petitioner within four weeks.

Petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.