Ved Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The matter is taken up through video conference.

The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 253/2019, dated 11.09.2019, under Sections 8 and 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on anticipatory bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 10.09.2019, a police team, alongwith Sh. Jai Chand, Forest Guard and Smt. Kali Devi, Panch of Ward No. 2, reached Tosh Village on a crusade for uprooting cannabis plants. When the said crusade was being carried out, they saw two fields, in which, besides Rajmah (kidney beans), cannabis plants were being cultivated. In order to inquire about the whereabouts of the owner of the fields, telephonically concerned Patwari was asked to come on the spot alongwith the records. As it was holiday and the Patwari was out of station, he could not come to the spot. Thereafter, the police associated Sh. Jai Chand and Smt. Kali Devi, as independent witnesses, and spot was inspected. During inspection, total land in which cannabis plants were cultivated was found to be 8 biswas and approximately 1600-1650 plants of cannabis were found. Smt. Kali Devi feigned ignorance as to who is the owner of the fields. Police photographed the fields took into possession some plants of cannabis and also lifted other apt samples. Thereafter, police completed all the codal formalities. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. The sample plants, taken into possession by the police from the fields, upon being chemically examined, were found as samples of cannabis and the fields, whereon said cannabis plants were found to have been cultivated, on being demarcated, were found to be in possession of one Ved Ram (petitioner herein). As per the police, the petitioner, in order to evade his arrest, absconded. Lastly, it has been prayed that the application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he has committed serious crime, the petitioner is trying to evade his arrest and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he permanent resident of the place. He has further argued that the cannabis plants, so uprooted and taken into possession by the police, grew as weeds in the Rajmah fields and were not being cultivated. He has argued that the petitioner ready and willing to join the investigation and co-operated in it, so his custodial interrogation is not at all required. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence and thereafter he is evading his arrest. He has further argued that in case he is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, so the application of the petitioner be dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is local resident and thus is not in a position to flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, his custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police. He has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join and co-operating in the investigation, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the manner in which the alleged cannabis plants were found to be cultivated in the fields by the police team, the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, so he is not in a position to flee from justice, the age of the petitioner, who is 61 years old, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 253/2019, dated 11.09.2019, under Sections 8 and 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.