Himachal Pradesh High Court
Of Mine Ram @ Monu @ Meene Ram vs State Of Madras on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
ON THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
.
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 894 OF 2022.
Between:-
MINE RAM @ MONU @ MEENE RAM
AGED 22 YEARS SON OF LATE SH.
KAHAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BADINA, POST OFFICE BREHIN, SUB
TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTRICT KULLU,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
THROUGH HIS WIFE
KIRANA BALA AGED 22 YEARS WIFE
OF MINE RAM @ MONU @ MEENE RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADINA, POST
OFFICE BREHIN, SUB TEHSIL SAINJ,
DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
....PETITIONER.
(BY MR. BHUPINDER SINGH AHUJA,
ADVOCATE.)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....RESPONDENT.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:40 :::CIS
...2...
(BY MR. P.K. BHATTI, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
.
RESERVED ON: 20th MAY, 2022.
DECEIDED ON: 23rd MAY, 2022.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court passed the following:-
ORDER
Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 60 of
2021, dated 24.07.2021, registered at Police Station
Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20
and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act").
2. The investigating agency after completion of
investigation has presented the challan before learned
Special Judge, Kullu. It is the case of the prosecution that
on 24.07.2021, the police party apprehended Luder Singh
accused at place near Seund Power House, who was
having a carry bag in his hand. On checking the carry
bag, charas weighing 1.083 kg was recovered. During
...3...
further investigation, accused Luder Singh is stated to
.
have given a statement to the police that he was carrying
the recovered contraband for accused Sanjay Dutt, who
had telephonically asked accused Luder Singh to sell the
contraband for Rs.75,000/-. Accused Sanjay Dutt was
arrested on 4th August, 2021. On perusal of call details of
the mobile phone of accused Sanjay Dutt, it was found
that he had conversed with accused Luder Singh on 18 th
July, 2021 and 24th July, 2021, a number of times.
3. On further investigation, it was found that
accused Sanjay Dutt had asked accused Luder Singh to
supply the contraband for petitioner Mine Ram. It was
the petitioner, who had asked accused Sanjay Dutt to
procure contrband for him.
3. Petitioner has sought bail in the above noted
case on the ground that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated. The prosecution story is alleged to be
totally absurd, baseless and imaginary. It has been
contended that there is no legal evidence to connect the
...4...
petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner is
.
stated to be permanent resident of Village Badina, Post
Office Brehin, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh. Petitioner has undertaken not to tamper with
the prosecution evidence.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and
have also gone through the records.
5. The quantity of charas involved in the case is
commercial and thus rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are applicable. At the stage of bail, this Court is not to
minutely scan the evidence collected during the
investigation, however, this Court is not precluded from
looking into the material so collected for prima facie
assessment of seriousness and gravity of allegations
levelled against the bail petitioner.
6. From the status report submitted by the
respondent/State, it is revealed that there were some
mobile phone calls exchanged inter se petitioner and
...5...
accused Sanjay Dutt. Apart from this, no legal evidence
.
to connect petitioner with the alleged offence has been
collected. It is stated that co-accused Sanjay Dutt
during his custody with the police made a disclosure
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
and thereafter disclosed the place where accused Luder
Singh was to handover the contraband to him.
r Such
statement is neither relevant nor admissible in evidence.
Similarly, respondent has relied upon the statements of
co-accused Sanjay Dutt and Luder Singh to the effect that
it was bail petitioner, who had asked co-accused Sanjay
Dutt to bring the contraband to be handed over to the
petitioner for consideration. Such statements again
cannot be looked into in the light of the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs.
State of Madras, 2021 (4) SCC 1.
7. Thus, the only material collected against the
petitioner is the alleged telephonical calls exchanged
inter se petitioner and co-accused Sanjay Dutt. Such
...6...
material again is not sufficient to hold existence of prima
.
facie complicity of bail petitioner in the case. In State
by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta
& Anr, Special Leave to Ap[peal (Crl.) No.242 of
2022, decided on 10.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh
vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 that a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the
aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-
NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary
statements of the respondents or the co-accused under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for
overturning the impugned orders releasing them on
bail. The CDR details of the some of the accuse dor
the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of
one of the respondents is an aspect that will be
examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid
reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020,
16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20 th
January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. @ Diary No.
22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No.
1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.)
No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are,
accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions
...7...
filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail
.
granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed
as meritless."
8. On aforesaid analysis, this Court is of
considered view that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act will not be an impediment for grant of bail to the
petitioner.
9. Further, the petitioner is permanent resident of
Village Badina, Post Office Brehin, Sub Tehsil Sainj,
District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. No past criminal history
is attributed to him. There is no apprehension of his
fleeing from the course of justice. It is not the case of the
respondent that in case of grant of bail to the petitioner,
the trial of the case shall be affected adversely.
10. The pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner
cannot be ordered as a matter of rule and no fruitful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody for an indefinite period.
11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is
...8...
ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 60 of 2021
.
dated 24.07.2021, registered at Police Station Sainj,
District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 20 and
29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kullu, however,
subject to following conditions:-
(i) 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 the Court or to any
police officer;
(ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without
the express permission of the trial Court;
(iii) That the petitioner will not tamper with prosecution
evidence.
12. However, it is made clear that the observations
made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of
...9...
the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the
.
present petition only.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
23rd May, 2022.
(jai)
r to
