The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed seeking bail in FIR dated 03.03.2023 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed that once a bail application has been dismissed, subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2023 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The Police recovered 2.603 grams of charas from the co-accused. The police arrested the driver of the vehicle from which recovery was done. Sanju made a disclosure statement that the Charas were given to him by one Vipin Singh (present petitioner). He could identify the place where the Charas was handed over. The police checked the mobile phone of Sanju and found that the petitioner had talked to Sanju six times.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the SIM was not issued in the name of the Petitioner and the money was paid by the main accused to the petitioner for the items purchased by him from the shop of the petitioner, which is duly supported by the bill issued by the petitioner. These documents could not be produced during the earlier bail petition; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. A commercial quantity of charas was recovered from the co-accused and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that once a bail application has been dismissed, subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. Where an earlier bail application was rejected, the court has to consider the rejection of an earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was submitted that the call detail record and the bill issued in the name of Sanju could not be produced during the hearing of the earlier bail application.
The Court observed that failure to mention the relevant evidence does not entitle a person to file a subsequent bail application without a change in circumstances. In the present case, no change in circumstances has been pleaded and the circumstances asserted in the application were executed at the time of the decision of the earlier bail application; therefore, the bail application cannot be allowed on this short ground alone.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no change in circumstances, hence, the present petition cannot be allowed.
Case Title: Vipin Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MPM No.176 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with ASI Jagdish Chand, P. S. Sainj, H.P.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
