Sahib vs State Of Himachal
2022 Latest Caselaw 9289 HP

                                                                       .
        IN      THE      HIGH      COURT OF HIMACHAL                    PRADESH,





                                      SHIMLA
                    ON THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022





                                 BEFORE
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
              CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.2386 of 2022





    Between:

    NARINDER   KUMAR,   AGED
    ABOUT 41 YEARS, SON OF
    SHRI JAIPAL, RESIDENT OF

    WARD NO.1, TEHSIL PAONTA

    SAHIB, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
    H.P.
                                                                     ....PETITIONER.



    (BY MR. HEMANT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

    AND




    STATE   OF                HIMACHAL
    PRADESH





                                                                 ....RESPONDENT.





    (M/S SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR AND SANJEEV SOOD,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL)
    (PSI MANOJ KUMAR, POLICE STATION PAONTA SAHIB,
    DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P., PRESENT IN PERSON ALONGWITH
    RELEVANT RECORD)


    Whether approved for reporting?1 No


             This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:



    1




                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2022 20:32:57 :::CIS
                                      2




                                                            .
                              JUDGMENT

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

release of the petitioner on bail, in F.I.R. No.221 of 2021, dated

14.12.2021, registered against him at Police Station Paonta Sahib,

District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 22­61­85 of the Narcotic

2.

r to Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'NDPS Act).

Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

case. He further submitted that taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioner is behind the bar for almost one year, present

petition be allowed as investigation is complete and no further

recovery etc. required to be made from the petitioner nor he is

required for the purpose of investigation. No other point was urged.

4. Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and

earlier also, case stands registered against him under the provisions

of NDPS Act and the present FIR is registered against the petitioner

while being on bail in the earlier FIR. On these basis, learned

.

Additional Advocate General submitted that it is not a fit case for

grant of bail and the petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed.

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

gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as

the status report. I have also gone through order passed in the

earlier petition filed by the petitioner, by the Court of learned Special

Judge­1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is that on

14.12.2021, 175 Capsules, Marka ' PYN­SPAS PLUS' were recovered

from the Scooty bearing registration No.HP 17A­9579 being driven

by the petitioner. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is engaged in

the business of procuring the Capsules from State of Haryana and

then selling the same in State of Himachal Pradesh. After recovery of

said Capsules from the petitioner, proceedings were initiated against

him under the provisions of NDPS Act and he was arrested. He still

continues to be in custody.

7. It is not in dispute that investigation stands completed

and the final report stands filed by the Investigating Officer before

the Court. However, it is borne out from the status report filed by

the State that earlier also, the petitioner has been booked under the

provisions of NDPS Act in FIR No.203 of 2020, dated 05.12.2020 and

the trial commenced on the basis of said FIR is still under

.

consideration. This demonstrates that there is merit in the

contention of learned Additional Advocate General that present

offence has been committed by the petitioner while being on bail in

the earlier FiR. One of the factor which the Court has to take into

consideration while considering the application filed by a party for

grant of bail is that if released on bail, is there possibility of the

petitioner indulging in similar activities or not. In the present case,

in view of the fact that before registration of the present FIR, earlier

also, FIR has been registered against the petitioner under the

provisions of NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered view that if

released on bail, there is each and every possibility of the petitioner

again indulging in similar activities.

8. In this view of the above discussion, this petition being

devoid of any merit is dismissed. 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 petition

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.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 14, 2022 (Rishi)