Ajay Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2368 HP

                                                                           .
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA





                                             Cr.MP(M) No.35 of 2021
                                             Decided on: 22.03.2021





    Ajay Singh                                                         ....Petitioner.
                       Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                      ...Respondent.




    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the petitioner :    Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate.


    For the respondent :            Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Sanjeev Sood,
                                    Additional Advocate Generals.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for release

of the petitioner on bail in case F.I.R. No.70 of 2016, dated

14.03.20216, registered under Sections 20, 61 & 85 of the Narcotics

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (hereinafter referred to 'NDPC'' for

short) Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

2. When this case was listed before the Court on 05.03.2021,

the following order was passed:-

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

.

"Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested after lodging of FIR in issue on 16th

March, 2016 and since then, he is in custody. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal

Appeal No.668 of 2020, decided on 12th October, 2020, in which case, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant

bail to the petitioner therein, who was also charged for

having committed offences under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving commercial quantity, inter alia, on the ground

that the petitioner therein had completed more than two years and seven months of actual custody. On the strength

of the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that as there is no considerable progress in the trial, it will be in the interest of justice in case this petition

is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and perused the status report, before any further order is passed, the State is directed to produce the record on the next date of hearing, to enable the Court to ascertain as to how the trial has progressed.

.

As prayed for, list on 15th March, 20201."

3. Thereafter, on 15.03.2021, the following order was passed:-

"The Court stands informed that evidence of the prosecution witnesses was closed by the learned Trial Court on 19th September, 2019, and thereafter, statement of

the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be recorded. The Court has further been informed that now the case has been listed before the

learned Court below on 18th of March, 2021.

As prayed for, list on 22.03.2021. Learned Deputy Advocate General is instructed to convey to the learned

Public Prosecutor to impress upon the learned Court below to fix a date immediately for recording statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure."

4. Today, the Court stands informed that now the matter is

listed before learned Court below, on 26.04.2021, for proper orders

only.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the status report filed as well as other documents appended with

the petition.

.

6. It is not in dispute that after lodging of the F.I.R., the

petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2016. The progress of the case till

date after lodging of the F.I.R. is that still the statement of accused

under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be record.

7. In Amrit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,

Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020, decided on 12th October, 2020,

Hon,ble Supreme Court, in an appeal preferred before it against the

order passed by this Court in a bail petition filed under Section 439 of

the Criminal Procedure Code was pleased to hold as under:-

"According to the case of the prosecution, in a vehicle occupied by five persons including the appellant,

contraband material ("Charas") weighing 3285 grams was

found concealed behind the panel of the front left side door of the vehicle.

It is accepted that seven witnesses have already been examined in the trial and seven more witnesses are yet to be examined. The last witness was examined in February 2020 whereafter there is no further progress in the trial because of the Covid-19 pandemic situation. It is also accepted that the appellant was taken in custody on 23.02.2018 and, as such, he has completed more than 2 years 7 months of actual custody.

.

Considering the facts and circumstances on record,

in our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefit under Section 439 of the Code. We order accordingly."

8. Coming to the facts of this case, the petitioner is in custody

since for the last almost five years now and admittedly, there is no

situation.

r to satisfactory progress in the trial because of the Covid-19 pandemic

9. In this background, this petition is allowed, as prayed for

and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the terms and

conditions to be so imposed upon him in this order keeping in view the

fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last almost five years as in

similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to

release an accused under NDPS Act, charge against whom was with

regard to commercial quantity of 'Charas', on bail, on the ground that

the accused had completed more than two years and seven months of

actual custody and the trial was not progressing on account of Covid-19

pandemic situation.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

instruction to submit that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner

.

shall not leave the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh without the

leave of the Court. His statement is taken on record.

11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, by ordering the

release of petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.70 of 2016, dated 14.03.20216,

registered under Sections 20, 61 & 85 of the Narcotics Drugs and

Psychotropic Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi,

H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial

Court, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to

do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise

to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

iv)Undertaking of the petitioner through Counsel is taken on record that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the State of H.P. without the permission of learned Trial Court.

12. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by

this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of

.

adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall

not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the

adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further

clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with the

conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the

present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the

cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above

terms.

Copy dasti.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge March 22, 2021

(Rishi)