The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail in the case dated 05.05.2023, under Sections 22 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court observed that the Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail applications merely establishing some cosmetic change between the time gap of two applications
Brief Facts:
On 05.05.2023, while the police party was on routine patrolling duty and engaged in easing traffic congestion, a vehicle was found parked by the side of the road, in which, two persons were sitting. On suspicion, the police started searching the aforesaid vehicle, and during the search, a blue-colored carry bag, containing 10 sealed bottles of Byerex-new 100 ml. Triprolidine Hydrochloride & Codeine Phosphate Syrup were recovered. After completion of necessary codal formalities, the FIR detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons and thereafter they were arrested.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.05.2023 and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, i.e. 28 years, if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the offense alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. commercial quantity, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the bail application of the petitioner was already dismissed by this Court and, therefore, considering the serious offense and in the absence of the petitioner having pointed out any changed circumstances i.e. actual and factual change in circumstances, the present application may not be entertained.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail application before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was found in possession of 10 bottles of Byerex-New, 100 ml each, of Triprolidine Hydrochloride & Codeine Phosphate Syrup, i.e. 1.201 Kgs, which was a commercial quantity and considering the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, the bail application was not entertained.
The Court observed that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. Successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him to get bail in successive bail applications. The Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail applications merely establishing some cosmetic change between the time gap of two applications. There should be drastic changes during the period between two applications.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that after the dismissal of the regular bail application, there is no change in the circumstances that would entitle the petitioner to file the present application.
Case Title: Sahil Chauhan v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sushil Kukreja
Case no.: Cr. MP(M) No.2607 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay K. Arora
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
