Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satvir Singh @ Keshav Aged vs Unknown on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 858 OF 2022
.
Between:-
SATVIR SINGH @ KESHAV AGED
21YEARS S/O SH JARNAIL SINGH
R/O VILLAGE MALKUMAJRA, PO
BHOOD, TEHSIL & POLICE
STATION BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN,
HP, PRESENTLY LODGED IN
MODEL CENTRAL JAIL KANDA,
DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.
r ......PETITIONER
(BY MS. RAJVINDER SANDHU,
ADVOCATES.)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
......RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS
WITH MR. BHUPENDER
THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL.)
Reserved on 12.5.2022
Decided on 13.5.2022
WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
O R DE R
The present bail application has been maintained
by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 228 of 2021,
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
dated 4.10.2021, under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'Act'), registered
at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No
fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind
the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
3. rPolice report stands filed. As per the prosecution
story, on 4.10.2021 Inspector Mahinder Singh along with his
team was on patrolling duty at Manpura. At around 6:00 pm,
when they are at Bhud Bus Stand, they received a secret
information to the effect that petitioner, herein, is involved in
the business of selling psychotropic pills illegally. The petitioner
has worn a white t-shirt and blue jeans and has a polythene
envelop in his hand. If the search of the petitioner is conducted,
huge quantity of psychotropic can be recovered. On being
asked, the boy divulged his name as Satvir Singh alias Keshav
(petitioner herein). As the police had suspicion that the
petitioner might be transporting some contraband, police
checked the box and found 60 strips i.e. 60 x 95 = 5700
LOMOTIL pills. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal
formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot
map was prepared and the petitioner was arrested. On being
chemically tested, the recovered substance was found to be
Diphenoxylate hydrochloride salt of 14.25 GM. Since the bail
petitioner failed to produce valid licence/permit to keep the
aforesaid drugs, police after completion of necessary codal
.
formalities registered case under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Act
against the bail petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was
remanded into judicial custody on 9.10.2021 and since then he
is behind the bars.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone
through the records, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued
that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Now
the case is fixed for consideration of charge. He has further
argued that at this stage keeping the petitioner behind the bars,
considering the facts that only intermediate quantity of
Diphenoxylate hydrochloride salt is alleged to have been
recovered from him, trial is approaching to its logical end and
custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police,
keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period
will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petition may be
allowed the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued that in similar kind of case, titled
as Harish Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
(CrMP(M) No. 1977 of 2019), where 9420 tablets of LOMOTIL
was recovered, this Court has granted the bail to the petitioner.
6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate
General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a
serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail,
.
he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee
from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the
petitioner be dismissed.
7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee
from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution
evidence. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the
terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, no fruitful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars
for an unlimited period. The custody of the petitioner is not at
all required by the police for any purpose, moreover the case is
fixed for consideration of charge, thus the trial is approaching
its final stage. In the above backdrop, the petition may be
allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
8. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee
from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution
evidence, as he is permanent resident of the place. His
custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as
nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the
petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the
bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged
on bail by allowing the instant bail petition.
9. The above case of the petitioner is squarely covered
with the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case
Harish Kumar supra. Applying the above law to the facts of this
.
case and also considering the quantity of the contraband
allegedly recovered in the present case, which is much lesser
and intermediate quantity and to give parity to the petitioner,
this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is
required to be released on bail in the instant case, after
considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that he is neither
in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a
position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place and
also considering the facts that nothing remains to be recovered
at the instance of the petitioner, his custody is not at all
required by the police, considering the quantity of the substance
allegedly recovered from the petitioner, the fact that the
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the
overall facts, which have come on record, and without
discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the
present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the
petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered
that the petitioner, in case FIR No. 228 of 2021, dated
4.10.2021, under Section 20-29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act shall be released on bail forthwith
in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The
bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
.
(i) That the petitioner will appear before
the learned Trial
Court/Police/authorities as and when
required.
(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India
without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioner will 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 the
Investigating Officer or Court.
10. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )
th
13 May, 2022 Judge
(Guleria)
