Sher Singh vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 964 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 133 of 2021 Reserved on : 28th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 04th February, 2021.

    Sher Singh                                                              ...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. Chaman Negi, Advocate.


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



                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

        FIR No. Dated             Police Station                   Sections




        131/2020 26.8.2020        Palampur, District Kangra.       20, 25 & 29 NDPS Act

    Anoop Chitkara, vacation Judge.

On the allegations of joint possession of commercial quantity of Charas along with other two occupants of the vehicle, the petitioner, who is incarcerating upon his

arrest, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.

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 Court.

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

3. The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Chaman Negi, 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,

.

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 25th August 2020, the

investigator along with other Police officials were patrolling the area of their jurisdiction. On 11.55 p.m., when they reached at a place Holta, they noticed two vehicles parked near the gate of Wool Federation. The cabinet lights of the vehicles

were switched on. The police officials when asked the occupants of such vehicles the reasons for sitting in the vehicle on such late hours, they could not give satisfactory reply. It raised suspicion in the mind of investigator and the investigator

decided to search the vehicle. Apart from independent witnesses, the Pradhan of

concerned Panchayat was associated, who reached at 12.45 mid night. From the search of vehicle No. HP76-3352, on the seat, adjacent to the driver accused Sarwan Kumar was sitting, who had kept a bag in front of his legs. On checking the same,

on transparent polythene packet was recovered in which black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found, which prima facie look like Charas. On weighing the same with the help of electronic scale, it measured 1 kilogram 154 grams. After that

the police completed all procedural requirement relating to this seizure. On the driver seat accused Lal Singh was sitting One person was sitting on the back seat,

who revealed his name as Sher Singh, petitioner herein. The police investigated and arrested these three persons, who presently are in custody. After that the police

conducted search of the other vehicle HP02K-1661. Search of the other vehicle did not lead to any recovery. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Mr. Chaman Negi, learned 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, 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 argument of Mr. Chaman Negi, learned cousnel for the petitioner is that

.

the petitioner was sitting on the back seat and he had no knowledge about the

contrband contained in the bag, which as per the case of the prosecution was with Sarwan Kumar, who was sitting on the front, as such he be not held accountable for

that. This argument is contradicted by the version of the police officials, who said that initially all the occupants of the vehicle became perplexed. The petitioner did not give any explanation in this regard. As such he has failed to satisfy the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

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. 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).