Talbe Ram vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 3335 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 223 of 2021 Reserved on: 30.07.2021 Decided on: 02.08.2021

.

    Talbe Ram                                                                        ...Petitioner





                                                 Versus
    State of H.P.                                                                    ...Respondent





    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate. (Through

video conferencing)

For the respondent/State: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Addl. AGs with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Dy. AG and Mr. Manoj r Bagga, Assistant AG.

______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

The instant petition is maintained by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in case

bearing FIR No. 23/2019, dated 01.02.2019, under Section 20 of the

ND&PS Act, registered in Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Further, he is permanent resident of district Mandi and neither in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to

flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him

behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

3. Tersely the facts of the case are that on 31.01.2019, police

party was present at temporary Check Post Bajaura, around 10:30

P.M., a bus bearing No. DL­IP­C­4550 came from Bhuntar side, which

was signaled to be stopped. When the police entered the bus and

.

started checking the luggage of the passengers, the present bail

petitioner and co­accused, who were sitting on seat numbers 1 and 2,

got perplexed. The accused persons tried to hid something under their

legs. On suspicion, the police officials checked the briefcase kept by the

accused persons under their legs. On opening of the said briefcase, five

packets, wrapped with plastic were found. When the said packets were

opened and checked, charas in the shape of chapattis was found. On

weighment, the contraband was found to be 2 Kgs and 225 grams.

Thereafter, all the codal formalities were conducted. Consequently, FIR

No. 23/2019, dated 01.02.2019, under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act,

came to be registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that

the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the contraband

recovered from the petitioner is 2 Kgs and 225 grams and in case the

petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility

that he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Additional Advocate General for the respondent­State and gone

through the records, carefully.

5. Mr. Praveen Chandel, learned Counsel for the petitioner,

has argued that the petitioner is behind the Bars for more than two

years and has spent sufficient time behind the Bars and since trial has

not commenced yet and is not likely to be completed in the near future,

.

the petitioner be released on bail to meet the ends of justice.

6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has

argued that the case is listed before the learned trial Court for

recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 4 th September,

2021 and since no prosecution witness has yet been examined, at this

stage, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with

the prosecution evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. He

has prayed that considering the quantity of the recovered contraband,

the instant bail petition be dismissed.

7. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an

unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete and challan

stands presented in the learned trial Court. He has argued that

considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bail

petition may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

8. At this stage, considering the quantity of the recovered

contraband, i.e. 2 Kgs and 225 grams, the fact that prosecution

witnesses are yet to be examined and in case at this stage, the

petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he may flee from

justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence. So, considering the

overall aspects of the case, which emerge from the record, and without

discussing them elaborately at this stage, this Court is of the opinion

that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit

.

the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.

9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition, which

sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

10. However, taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner is behind the Bars for more than two years and no

prosecution witness has yet been examined, it is expected that learned

trial Court will try to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible.

11. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove

are only confined for the adjudication of the instant petition and shall

have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which

shall be adjudicated on its own.

                                               (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)





     2   nd
              August, 2021                                 Judge
          (raman)