The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed by the applicant for seeking pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that no explanation has been provided regarding the petitioner having the backpack at the time of the boarding of the bus. Just because the backpack was not kept by the petitioner with him does not mean that he was not in possession of the same.
Brief Facts:
The police party checked an HRTC Bus on the intervening night of 15/16.07.2022. They found a backpack on the iron rack containing 336.63 grams of intoxicating powder. The police could not find the name of the owner of the backpack. Subsequently, the police claimed that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the crime. The police had also found the clothes in the backpack and asked the petitioner to wear the clothes but they were not found fit for him; hence, he was permitted to leave. The petitioner has an apprehension of his arrest; therefore, the petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was falsely implicated. He was allowed to leave from the spot. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by a Competent Court of law and cannot be granted pre-arrest bail. The police have collected the CCTV footage, which clearly shows the petitioner boarding the bus with the backpack containing heroin in it. Thus, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The quantity of heroin was commercial and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case.
The Court noted that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. Once a person is declared a proclaimed offender, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
The Court observed that the petitioner boarded the bus with the backpack and he was seen in the CCTV footage. Therefore, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the backpack recovered by the police. No explanation has been provided regarding the petitioner having the backpack at the time of the boarding of the bus. Just because the backpack was not kept by the petitioner with him does not mean that he was not in possession of the same. A person is in possession if he is in a position to exercise control over the article. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not in possession when he was able to exercise control over the backpack.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Case Title: Dildar Khan @ Sonu Khan v State of H.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MP(M) No. 2776 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ashok Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://pixnio.com/free-images/science/medical-science/drug-paraphernalia-were-a-number-of-red-oblong-tablets-rows-or-lines-725x483.jpg
