Roop Singh vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 844 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.192 of 2021 Reserved on: 1.02.2021

.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2021.

    Roop Singh                                                   ...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. Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General.

                         THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE




        FIR     Dated         Police Station                     Sections
        No.





        116     10.12.2019    Banjar,    District    Kullu, 15, 25 and 29
                              H.P.                          of NDPS Act.





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, who is in custody under Narcotics Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), w.e.f. 10.12.2019

for possessing 61.800 Kg. of poppy straws, has now come up before

this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

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

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, (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. Earlier, the petitioner

had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned this

Court. However, vide order dated 17.6.2019 this Court, dismissed the

petition having been withdrawn.

3. In Para 5 (VII) of the bail application, the petitioner

declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not

mention any criminal past of the accused.

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

9.12.2019, the police officials were on patrolling duty in the

jurisdiction of aforementioned police station. They signaled one

vehicle stop. After stopping, driver of the vehicle alongwith another

person alighted and ran away, but the police officials could not nab

them. Thereafter police associated independent witnesses and

searched the vehicle and recovered 61.800 Kg. of poppy straws. After

that, the investigator conducted procedural requirements of NDPS

Act and Cr.P.C. and on the basis of call details, police nabbed the

accused persons and arrested them. Based on these allegations, the

Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the

.

petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt

would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have

collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-

accused. Another argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is

heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might

send a wrong message to society.

7. There are various phone calls between both the accused.

The report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C stands filed, however, learned

counsel for the petitioner did not place on relevant documents to

make out the case for bail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for

bail.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain

statements and memos from the police report, prepared under

section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the accused had duly received in

compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld.

Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies

supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any

finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other

arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on

the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an

exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may

prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused.

.

10. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to

this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail.

The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

11. 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.

The petition is dismissed.

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

February 4, 2021 (R.Atal)