Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ankush vs State Of H.P on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2295 of 2020
.
Date of Decision: January 6, 2021
Ankush ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Advocate,
through Video Conferencing.
For the Respondent:
r Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
General, through Video Conferencing.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court for releasing him
on bail, in case FIR No.85 of 2020, dated 16.9.2020, registered
under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act), in Police Station
Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
2. As per Status Report, filed on behalf of respondent-
State, petitioner, alongwith two others, on 16.9.2020 at 4.50 pm,
was found travelling in Car No.HP01S-1917 from Chandigarh side
towards Solan, wherefrom, during checking of the vehicle, 39.11
grams heroin was recovered from the space located in front of co-
driver seat below the Dash Board. Following the procedure
prescribed under law, recovered heroin was seized and taken in
possession, and Ruka was sent for registration of FIR and later on
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
petitioner, alongwith co-accused namely Supriya and Mukesh
Thakur, was arrested at 9.30 pm, after getting permission from
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli.
.
3. During investigation, Call Detail Report of the phone of
the petitioner as well as the co-accused has also been obtained.
Tower location on 15.9.2020 of the mobile phones of the co-accused
were found at Parwanoo and thereafter on 16.9.2020 in Haryana,
Punjab and Delhi and on the same day the location of return journey
was also found. Mobile phone of the petitioner was switched off
and, therefore, his exact location could not be reflected in Call
Detail Reports.
4. Challan in present case has been presented in Court on
12.11.2020.
5. Earlier bail application of the petitioner bearing Cr.M.P.
(M) No. 1876 of 2020, filed before filing of the challan in Court, was
dismissed as withdrawn on 09.11.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the co-accused namely Supriya and Mukesh Thakur have already
been enlarged on bail and further that the petitioner was not aware
about the transportation of the recovered heroin by co-accused,
who were travelling in the car. Further, it is stated that quantity
recovered is intermediate quantity and that petitioner is in custody
since 16.9.2020.
7. In the status report it is stated that no other case has
been found registered against the petitioner.
8. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances,
without commenting on merits of the case, at this stage, I am of the
opinion that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to
be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
.
`50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court, within two weeks from today, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall make himself
available during investigation, as well as
the trial on each and every date as and
when required, as per law;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try
to overawe or influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses;
(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the
smooth progress of the trial;
(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the
offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused or suspected;
(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty
in any manner;
(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the
bail;
(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the
change in address, landline number and/or
mobile number, if any, for his availability to
Police and/or during trial; and
(viii) that he shall not leave India without permission
of the Court. He shall inform the Police/Court his
contact number and shall keep on informing about
change in address and contact number, if any, in
future.
9. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing
and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the
.
petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be
open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on
the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.
10. In case the petitioner violates any or the conditions
imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such
eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law
for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the
directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.
HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
12. Observations made hereinabove shall not affect the
merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the
disposal of the present bail application.
13. Present petition stands disposed of.
14. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order
downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall
not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify
the order from the High Court website or otherwise.
Copy dasti on usual terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
January 6, 2021
(Purohit)
