The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, seeking regular bail in a case registered for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed that the police have a right to seek the cancellation in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, however, bail cannot be denied based on the apprehension alone.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was arrested for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It was asserted that the Petitioner has enmity with the husband of his niece, who had threatened the Petitioner to kill or implicate the Petitioner in a false case. The mother of Pritam Singh is a cook at Bhoj Nagar Police Post, District Solan, H.P., who in connivance with the police planted the contraband in the bike of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the present case. As per the status report the challan has been prepared and presented before the competent Court of law; hence the custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court; therefore, he 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 was found in possession of 302 grams of Charas. The consumption of narcotics is adversely affecting the younger generation of society and should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner can abscond and intimidate the witnesses in case he is released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner was found in possession of 302 grams of Charas. It is more than a small quantity but less than a commercial quantity; therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner is likely to abscond and influence the witnesses in case he is released on bail.
The Court observed that the police have a right to seek the cancellation in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, however, bail cannot be denied based on the apprehension alone. The status report does not mention that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner deserves a chance to reform himself. The continued detention of the petitioner in custody will make the chance of reformation bleak as he will come in contact with the hardened criminals.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Case Title: Joginder Singh v State of H.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthala
Case no.: Cr. MPM No. 3072 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
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
