HC expounds Pre-Trial incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule [Read Judgment]

20 Feb 2022

By : Ayesha

The Single Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh consisting of Justice Satyen Vaidya while granting bail in a criminal miscellaneous petition held that the pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule. No fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody and the trial against him is likely to take considerable time before conclusion.

Facts and Contentions Made

The petitioner is an accused in case registered at Police Station u/s 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”). Petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2022. He was remanded to judicial custody till 15.01.2022. However, he was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.01.2022, on which date, he was remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner prayed for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the investigation in the case have already been completed. No further recovery is to be affected from him. His further incarceration shall serve no purpose. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions, as may be imposed. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office, Samoli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. There is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner has undertaken not to make any inducement directly or indirectly, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. In response, the respondent filed status report alleging inter alia that on11.01.2022, the police party was on routine patrol and they found a person sitting in a rain shelter near place ‘Fairview’ on Forest Road Shimla, who was holding a carry bag in his hands. On search of the bag, 8 grams of ‘heroin’ (chitta) was recovered, besides, 25 Nos. folded empty foil papers and currency notes of Rs.15,000/-. The contraband was seized. Petitioner was placed under arrest. On further investigation, petitioner disclosed his name Sardeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar. Petitioner is alleged to have admitted that had been purchasing the contraband from one Gagandeep Singh for further sale for the last about one year. He also claimed certain other persons to be involved with him. The investigation is said to be still pending. It is apprehended that in case of release of petitioner on bail, he can influence or threaten the witnesses and can also affect the further investigation in the case.

Observations of the Court

The Bench observed that:

“Petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office Samoli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. The pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule. No fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. The trial against him is likely to take considerable time before conclusion.”

Judgment

The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail u/s 21 of the NDPS Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla or any other Judicial Magistrate First Class. This order is, however, subject to following conditions and it is clarified that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner:

That the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation in case so required.
That the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and in the event of breach of this condition, being made by petitioner, the bail granted to the petitioner in this case, shall automatically be cancelled.
That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without express leave of this Court till the completion of investigation and thereafter of the Trial Court during the Trial, if any.
That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
That the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.