Amit Kumar @ Meeta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 388 HP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 388 HP
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2021

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Amit Kumar @ Meeta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 January, 2021

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA
                                         Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1719 of 2020




                                                                                .

                                         Date of Decision: January 7, 2021





    Amit Kumar @ Meeta                                                              ...Petitioner.

                                                  Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                       ..Respondent.


    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner:                  Mr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate, through Video
                                         Conferencing.

    For the Respondent:                  Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate


                                         General, through Video Conferencing.


    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

Petitioner herein, has been arrayed as an accused on

the basis of disclosure statements of Chiranji Lal and Neeraj

Kumar co-accused in FIR No.133 of 2020 dated 18.08.2020,

registered in Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., under

Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' in

short), from whom about 8 grams of heroin/Chitta was recovered

when car in which they were travelling was intercepted by the

police for checking.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section

439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), for enlarging

him on bail. He has been arrested on 18.08.2020 and since then,

after remaining in police custody during initial days, he is in judicial

custody.

3. It is stated in the status report that when police had

approached petitioner-Amit Kumar @ Meeta he had chewed some

papers which were taken in to possession and sent for chemical

examination, however, as per Chemical Analyst's report received

from Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, these paper pieces were

not containing either heroin or any other Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance, mentioned in the Schedule and Notification

of NDPS Act.

4. 8 grams of heroin was recovered from co-accused

Chiranji Lal and Neeraj Kumar, who had disclosed that same was

provided to them by the present petitioner. Both of them have

been enlarged on bail by this Court vide judgment dated

04.01.2021 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 1696 and 1730 of 2020.

5. It is claim of the petitioner that he has been arrayed as

an accused, on suspicion only despite the fact that there is no

evidence against him with respect to supply of heroin to Neeraj

Kumar and Chiranji Lal.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of

status report, had pointed out that petitioner was not disclosing his

correct address as at different times he had disclosed his address

differently i.e. one address of Kullu and another of Mandi. In

response thereto, Uma Devi wife of petitioner has filed an affidavit,

wherein she has stated that address of petitioner Amit Kumar @

Meeta, as mentioned in Aadhar Card, is 294/3, Ward No.3, Post

Office Mandi, Tehsil Sadar, Jail Road, Mandi, H.P. She has further

stated that at present, petitioner has been residing with her since

the year 2008 and her address, as mentioned in Aadhar Card, is

294/3, Ward No.3, Post Office Mandi, Tehsil Sadar, Jail Road, Mandi,

H.P. and further that her above referred address is identical to the

address of petitioner mentioned in memo of parties.

7. Without going into the merits and rival contentions of

the parties and avoiding evaluation of material on record on its

merit, considering quantity of alleged recovered contraband, period

of detention of the petitioner and also enlargement of co-accused

on bail, at this stage, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed and petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.133 of 2020 dated

18.08.2020, registered in Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P.,

under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 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 three weeks

from today, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and

proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated

hereinafter, so as to ensure the presence of petitioner/accused at

the time of trial and also subject to following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(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 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 investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar

to the offence to 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; and

(vii) that petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. 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 condition 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. Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions

issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.