Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 12th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 547 OF 2022
Between:-
UMESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE
SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDU
MATKANDA, PO MANDODHAR,
TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT
SOLAN HP AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. SUDHIR THAKUR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR.KARUN
NEGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Judgment Reserved on: 6th May, 2022
Date of Decision: 12thMay, 2022
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking
provisions of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.PC'), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 27 of
2022 dated 3.2.2022, registered under Sections 21 and 29
of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in
short 'NDPS Act') in Police Station Dharampur, District
.
Solan H.P.
2 Status report stands filed. Record was also
made available.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.2.2022 at
about 6.40 PM police party, while on patrolling near Toll
Plaza Sanwara, received a reliable information from a
reliable informer that two young men namely Hemant
Sharma (petitioner) and Umesh Thakur are selling and
purchasing chitta in Bolero No. HP-64A-0518 in Jabli Bazar
near Ashish Hotel and on raiding the vehicle immediately,
huge quantity of heroine could be recovered. Information
was firm and reliable, but, there was possibility of
disappearance of contraband and evidence, therefore, a
written information was prepared under Section 42(2) of
NDPS Act and was sent to Supervisory Officer, SIU Solan,
through C.Naveen Kumar. Thereafter, police party, after
associating two independent persons Bhupinder Singh
Thakur and Sandeep, moved towards Jabli Bazar and
reached near Ashish Hotel at 7.20 PM, where Bolero
vehicle, in reference, was found parked on side of road with
two occupants therein. Police party informed them about
information received through informer and asked their
identity. Person sitting on driving seat was found Umesh
.
Thakur and another person sitting along with him on co-
driver seat was Hemant Sharma (petitioner). Search of
Bolero was conducted by following the prescribed
procedure. During search, a transparent plastic pouch,
containing orange colored soft powder was found kept
below the footmat of co-driver seat. Occupants of vehicle
had disclosed that it was chitta/heroine and it was verified
with the help of drug detection kit. On weighing with the
Digital Weighing machine, it was found 6.37 grams. The
recovered contraband was taken in possession and seized
by following the procedure. Ruka was sent for registration
of FIR. After registration of FIR, petitioner along with co-
accused was arrested on 3.2.2022 at 3.45 AM. After
remaining for three days in police remand, petitioner is,
now, in judicial custody since then.
4 Challan has been prepared and being checked
for presenting it in Court. As per status report, petitioner
Umesh Thakur has been found involved in one other case
i.e. FIR No. 14 of 2020 dated 21.2.2020 under Sections 21
and 29 of NDPS, registered in Police Station Kasauli, District
Solan.
5 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted
.
that in the previous case, registered in Police Station
Kasauli, the quantity of contraband, alleged to be
recovered is very small and in present case also, recovered
contraband is 6.37 grams, which is slightly more than small
quantity and parents of petitioner intend to rehabilitate the
petitioner by taking help of Rehabilitation Agencies/Centers
as he is victim of bad company and further that petitioner
is behind the bars since more than three months and
keeping in view his case and adopting a re-formative
attitude, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
6 Learned Additional Advocate General has
submitted that petitioner has been found involved in one
more case for commission of offence under NDPS Act and
now he is involved in commission of offence of a nature,
which is destroying not only the individuals but family
members causing harm to the society at large and
therefore, his bail application deserves to be rejected.
7 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner
that petitioner is a young boy of 27 years of age and his
family is having roots in the society and there is no
possibility that petitioner would flee from justice or jump
over the bail. He further submits that petitioner is ready to
abide by conditions imposed by Court, in case he is
.
enlarged on bail.
8 Without commenting upon the merits of case,
but, taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also taking note of the
factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme
Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time
of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that
petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case, at this
stage.
9 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be
enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a
period of two weeks from today and also subject to any
further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring
his presence during trial including the following further
conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall make
himself available during the
investigation as well as trial on
each and every date as and
when required;
(iii) 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. She
shall not, in any manner, try to
overawe or influence or intimidate
the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) That the petitioner shall not
obstruct the smooth progress of
the investigation as well as trial;
(v) That the petitioner shall not jump
over the bail and shall inform, in
writing, regarding change of
address, land line number and/or
mobile number, if any, in
advance, to concerned Police
Station;
(vi) That the petitioner shall not
commit the offence similar to the
offence to which he is accused or
suspected or the commission of
which she is suspected;
(vii) In the event of repetition of
commission of offence, bail
granted in present case shall be
liable to be cancelled on taking
appropriate steps by
prosecution/police;
(viii) That the petitioner shall not
.
leave India without prior
permission of Court;
(ix) That petitioner shall not misuse his
liberty in any manner.
10 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for
imposing any such other or further condition on the
petitioner asr deemed necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It
will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose
any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may
deem necessary in the interest of justice.
11 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.
12 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 18.3.2013.
13 Any observation made in this order shall not
affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly
confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under
.
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
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.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti copy on usual terms.
May 12th 2022 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
