Shashi Kumar vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 878 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 1900 of 2020 Reserved on: 28th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 04th February, 2021.

    Shashi Kumar                                                            ...Petitioner.





                                    Versus

    State of H.P.                                                          ...Respondent.





    Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Seema Sharma & Mr. Narinder Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Asstt. A.G.

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

        FIR No.   Dated      Police Station                   Sections
        31/20     6.4.2020   Puruwala, District Sirmaur       20 & 29-61-85 NDPS Act




                                                              and 188 IPC





    Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing commercial quantity

of Codine Phosphate, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 21.8.2020, Learned Special Judge-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP, dismissed the petition.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more,

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

or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 6 th April, 2020, the

.

police officials were conducting patrolling in their jurisdiction in a private Car. At 5.15 p.m., when the police officials reached at a place known as Rampurghat, they received a secret information that two persons are coming on a motorcycle bearing

registration No.UK16A-9615, black coloured Splender, towards Rampurghat. The informant further revealed that the driver of the motorcycle is Shashi Kumar wearing particular clothes and the pillion rider is Irshad. The informant specifically said that

in between these two persons there is a bag, in which there is psychotropic substance. The informant also told that they are out for delivery and in case they are not nabbed, it would not be possible for the Police to recover the contraband. The investigator

believed the information to be correct and complied requirement of Section 42 of the

NDPS Act. After that he associated two local persons as witnesses and waited for the motorcycle to come. At about 6.00 p.m., the said motorcycle arrived and its rider on seeing the police became perplexed, however, the police officials were prepared and

they nabbed them. On inquiry, the driver of the motorcycle revealed his name as Shashi Kumar, petitioner herein and the pillion rider as Irshad. The police also noticed a bag lying in between them. On opening it had 15 bottles of

Chlorpheniramine maleate and codiene Phosphate syrup. Thereafter the police conducted other procedural requirements under NDPS Act and Cr.PC and arrested

the accused. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is maiden offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family. He further submits that when the cough syrup was sent for testing then the report mentions it as manufactured by 'Talabali Chanda Nazal Panchvati Colony, Lasudia Moridevas, Naka Indore (MP)-452010, and at the time of recovery the address is mentioned as 'Globin Pharmaceutical Private Limited, Puhana Chowk, Dehradun Road Roorkee (UK).

6. On the contrary, the learned Deputy Advocate General 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. The arguments of Mr. Deepak Kaushal is that the drug, which was tested in the

.

Laboratory, was not the drug recovered from the petitioner because there appeared change in the name of the Company. In the status report dated 22.1.2021, the State has clarified that in the seizure memo, they have mentioned the name and address of

the Company whereas it was manufactured by 'Globin Pharmaceutical Private Limited, Puhana Chowk, Dehradun Road Roorkee (UK). Thus, it was a contract manufacturing on behalf of the Company and that is why both the names were

written and both were correct. Given the status report, it is a matter of appreciation of evidence after looking at the case property, when it will be produced in the Court during the trial. At this stage, the quantity is commercial and the petitioner has failed

to make out a case for bail.

8. 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.

9. The alternative submissions of Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the

petitioner is that in case this Court is not inclined to grant bail, then the trial be expedited.

10. Given the fact that the petitioner is in jail from April 2020 and the substance is just 15 bottles of cough syrup containing Codiene Phosphate, as such, learned

Special Judge is requested to conclude the trial on the top priority, as early as possible. It is also clarified that neither the accused nor prosecution shall seek

unnecessary adjournments in this Case. Registry is directed to sent a copy of this order to learned Special Judge, Sirmaur for compliance.

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.

Petition dismissed.

(Anoop Chitkara), Vacation Judge.

February 04, 2021 (ps).