Rajiv Kumar vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 988 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.2300 of 2020 Reserved on: 22nd January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 04th February, 2021.

    Rajiv 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. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent :

r Mr. Narender Guleria & Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl.

A.Gs. with Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Mr. Gaurav Sharma & Ms. Divya Sood, Dy. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

                           THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

    FIR No. Dated               Police Station                        Sections
    137/2020 30.8.2020          Padhar, District Mandi                20 NDPS Act




    Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

An under-trial prisoner, in custody since 30th August, 2020, for possessing commercial quantity of Charas, 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 23.09.2020, learned Special Judge, Mandi, HP, dismissed the petition.

3. In Para 6 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 29 th August, 2020, the Police officials were on patrolling within their jurisdiction and had erected a

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

barricade at Kufardhar. At 9.30 p.m. one Car came from the side of Tikkan. The police officials signaled the Car to stop, on which the driver parked the Car on the side of the road. Only driver was sitting in the Car. On inquiry he told his name as

.

Rajiv Kumar, petitioner herein. The police officials asked him to show the

documents of the vehicle. When he opened the dashboard to take out the documents, then along with the documents one cloth parcel fell down in the Car. The police

officials inquired about this parcel, then he became perplexed. It raised suspicion in the mind of the police officials. Since it was night time and they could not find independent witness, therefore, the police officials checked the same. It had Charas in it and when weighed on electronic scale it measured 1 kilogram and 115 grams.

Thereafter the police arrested the accused and conducted other procedural requirements under NDPS Act and Cr.PC.

5. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that

incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the police

have collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner. He further argued that the crime is heinous; the accused is a risk to law-abiding people; and bail might sent a wrong message to Society.

7. Although the independent witnesses were not associated probably because of

non-availability, yet the burden is on the petitioner to make out the case for grant of bail, which he failed to do. As such, this petition is dismissed

8. 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 dismissed.

(Anoop Chitkara), Vacation Judge.

February 04, 2021 (ps).