Mangat Ram vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 623 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 73 of 2021 Date of Decision: 19.01.2021.

.

    Mangat Ram                                                            ...Petitioner.





                                  Versus
    State of H.P.                                                        ...Respondent.

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1NO


    For the petitioner:    Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Bhupender Thakur & Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

                           THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE


        FIR No.   Dated         Police Station        Sections




        12        11.01.2021    Rampur                15 and 20 of NDPS Act





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

On allegations of jointly possessing 609 grams of Charas with the co-

accused, which is an intermediate quantity, the petitioner, apprehending arrest, came

up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. 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

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

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 Judge.

.

3. In Para 8 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 which led to the

registration of the FIR, mentioned above are that on 11.01.2021, police officials of

Police Station Rampur Bushahar, were patrolling within their jurisdiction. At

6 O'clock in the evening, police officials noticed a vehicle and was signaled to

stop. The vehicle did not stop immediately and it stopped after a cap of 60-70 mtrs.

Immediately after stopping the vehicle, driver opened the door of the vehicle and ran

away. On this, police officials immediately came at the vehicle and found one person

sitting on the adjacent seat and told his name as Ghanshyam. He revealed the name

of the driver as Mangat Ram. Search of the vehicle led to recovery of 909 grams of

charas.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation

would serve no purpose whatsoever. The incarceration before the proof of guilt

would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the

State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to

very stringent conditions.

7. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the

quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. S. 2 (xxiii-a) defines a

small quantity as the quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the

NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, which is now

generally called as intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which

specify an offense, also mention that minimum and maximum sentence, depending

.

upon the quantity of the substance. Commercial quantity mandates minimum

sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred

thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act.

8. Since it is the first offence of the petitioner and the quantity of

contraband involved is 609 grams, which prima facie is not a Commercial quantity.

As such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not apply in the present case.

Resultantly, the present case is similar to other instances of the grant of bail in a

penal offence. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner

makes out a case for release on bail.

9. In Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008)

16 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that in intermediate quantity, the

rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified. In Sunny Kapoor v State

of HP, CrMPM 2168 of 2020, (Para 15), this Court observed that when the quantity

is less than commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract,

and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes. Thus, when the

maximum sentence cannot exceed ten years, and the accused is yet to be proved

guilty, the grant of bail is normal, unless the Prosecution points towards the

exceptional circumstances, negating the bail.

11. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering

with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be

taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila

Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually,

subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In

Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme

Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is

.

duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and

the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court

can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to

ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.

12. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner,

subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective

of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

13. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM

No. 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any

Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish

surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

14. Given above, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR

mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five

thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of a similar amount, to the

satisfaction of the Investigator. Before accepting the sureties, the Attesting Officer

must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are

capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence

behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

15. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish aforesaid personal bond

and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Twenty-five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), made in

favour of " Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.,"

a) The arresting Officer shall give a time of ten working days to enable the accused to prepare a fixed deposit.

b) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the

.

clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest

reverting to the linked account.

c) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

d) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

e) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if

possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled.

f) The petitioner or his Advocate shall inform at the earliest to the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such

information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed

deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as well as FIR number.

g) After that, the petitioner shall hand over such proof along with endorsement to the concerned Court.

h) It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

i) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire

amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A

CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

16. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of

the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very bond, the petitioner also promises to appear before the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioner shall

.

immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about

the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

c) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner

shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of

summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July

10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified

date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's presence and may send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

19. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any

offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any

condition as stipulated in this order, the State may move an appropriate application

before this Court, seeking cancellation of this bail. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall

continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-

.

A of the CrPC.

20. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the

petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail

order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi.

21. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating

fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then

for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before

this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the

trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or

delete any condition.

22. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the

Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

23. 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.

24. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that

the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

25. There would no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition stands

allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

January 19, 2021 R.Atal