Deepak Thakur vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 3436 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1500 of 2021 Date of Decision: 03.08.2021

.

________________________________________________________________

Deepak Thakur ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO ____________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General & Mr. Ram

Lal Thakur & Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

                            THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE


        FIR No.   Dated          Police Station                         Sections
        149       21.07.2021     West Shimla, District Shimla, 21 and 29 of NDPS
                                 H.P.                          Act.




    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, who is incarcerating under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), for possessing heroin (Deacetyl

morphine), has now come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail, on the grounds that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized is intermediate quantity and does not restrict bail, because the quantity greater than 250 grams of heroin (Deacetyl morphine), falls in the category of the commercial quantity; hence the restrictions for bail imposed in S. 37 of NDPS Act, do not apply, and in the present case he is in custody for a considerable time.

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36,

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

(Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

.

3. Para-7 of the bail petition declares the petitioner having no criminal

history.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 21.07.2021,

police officials of the aforementioned police station were conducting patrolling in their jurisdiction to detect and stop criminal activities. At about 2:00 p.m., when police officials were at Shoghi, then they received secret information that three

persons are coming from Chandigarh in Innova Crysta and are carrying huge quantity of contraband. After that the investigator complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and waited for the vehicle to come. When the said Innova reached, then it was stopped. After that the police officials also signaled a car

to stop and associated its occupants as independent witnesses and conducted search

of Innova and the persons sitting in it, in their presence. From below the foot mat of the driver seat, police officials recovered light yellow powder, which when weighed, it was found to be 64.43 grams of heroin. Deepak Thakur (A-1), petitioner herein,

was sitting on the driver seat, Sunil Chauhan (A-2), was sitting on the rear seat, whereas, on the seat adjacent to the driver, Sunil Negi (A-3) was sitting. After that

police conducted investigation under NDPS Act and Cr.P.C and arrested the accused. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative arguments on behalf of the State are that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

REASONING:

7. In Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified. In Sunny Kapoor v State of HP, CrMPM 2168 of 2020, (Para 15), this Court observed that when the quantity is less than commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes. Thus, when the

maximum sentence cannot exceed ten years, and the accused is yet to be proved guilty, the grant of bail is normal, unless the Prosecution points towards the exceptional circumstances, negating the bail.

.

8. As per learned counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered from the

petitioner is intermediate quantity and he has no criminal history . Given the quantity of contraband being intermediate and also the fact that the accused is first offender,

as such, this Court is affording him an opportunity to mend his ways.

9. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be

taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

10. Without commenting on the case's merits, given the investigation

stage, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the circumstances peculiar

to this case, the petitioner makes a case for release on bail.

11. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective

of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

12. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM

No. 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish

surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

13. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above,

subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any Ilaqa Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Magistrate must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

14. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten thousand only

(INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district.

a) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake

.

of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g.,

HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the

linked account.

b) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

c) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

d) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor

shall get the online liquidation disabled.

e) The petitioner or his Advocate shall inform at the earliest to the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed

deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as well as FIR number.

f) After that, the petitioner shall hand over such proof along with endorsement to the concerned Court.

g) It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply

for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

h) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

15. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance to the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try

to delay the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very bond, the petitioner also promises to appear before

.

the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone

number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such

modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

c) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any

inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the

Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with

the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of

the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5

PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

.

iii. Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, in that

eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's presence and may send the petitioner to the

Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

16. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any

offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that

the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the

bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

17. Any advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the

petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi/English.

18. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then

for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the

trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

21. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

22. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds. Any Advocate for the petitioner can download this order along

with the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer or the Court wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded

.

copy for attesting bonds.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Copy Dasti.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge

3rd August, 2021 (R.Atal)