Tara Chand vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, for possessing commercial quantity of charas,

has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed bail petition before this Court, however, the same was withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh, in accordance with

law, at an appropriate stage, if so required.

Para 8 of the bail application declares the petitioner having no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 27.08.2020, Special Investigating Unit of the concerned police station was conducting

patrolling for the purpose of checking vehicle and to detect crime towards Sanjauli-Dhalli,-Mashobra -Kufri. At around 4:00 p.m., when police officials

were present at forest check post Dhalli, then a car came from Kufri side. Only the driver was in the car. Police inquired from the said person

reasons about his travel, to which, he could not give satisfactory reply and became perplexed. It raised suspicion in the mind of the investigator and he

decided to take search of the person and the vehicle. After that he associated to local witnesses and in their presence, conducted search of the

vehicle. In the back portion of the car, there were two rucksacks. On opening, one of it contained charas, which when weighed on electronic weighing

scale, was measured 2.089 Kg. After that, the investigator conducted procedural requirements of NDPS Act and Cr.P.C and arrested the said person,

who had revealed his name as Sunil Kumar. Subsequently, police came to know about the involvement of the present petitioner and he was also

arrested. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice

to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to

society.

During investigation, the co-accused, Sunil Kumar, has revealed involvement of the present petitioner, Tara Chand, in the commission of offence.

Thus, the burden is upon the petitioner to come out of the conditions of Section 37 of the Act, which he failed.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned

above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.