Himachal Pradesh High Court

Manjeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 March, 2023

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                                1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                    Cr.M.P.(M) No.54 of 2023
                                    Date of Decision: March 2, 2023




                                                                           .
    Manjeet Singh                                                           ...Petitioner.





                                             Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                              ..Respondent.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the Petitioner:             Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate, vice





                                    Mr.Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
    For the Respondent:             Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate
                      r             General.

    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking

provisions of Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short

'Cr.P.C.'), seeking bail in case FIR No.74 of 2020 dated

20.7.2020, registered in Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu,

H.P., under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as

'NDPS Act').

2. Status report stands filed and record was also made

available.

3. In the status report, the circumstances have been

narrated in details in which petitioner was apprehended for

having been found in possession of 1.515 kilogram charas in

vehicle bearing registration No.HP-29B-5110 being driven by

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

him. In the vehicle, he was accompanied by co-accused Ashwani

Rana sitting on the front seat alongwith Gulshan and Jatinder

sitting on the rear seat. Petitioner alongwith co-accused, after

registration of FIR was arrested on 20.07.2020. Since then,

petitioner is behind the bars and facing trial. In this case, out of

total 19 witnesses, 6-7 witnesses have been examined and case

is pending adjudication before Special Judge-cum-Additional

Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Gulshan, Jatinder and Ashwani Rana have been enlarged on bail

by this Court vide orders dated 04.08.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.(M)

No.453 of 2022 and dated 26.12.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.

2465 of 2022 and, therefore, on the ground of parity, prayer for

enlarging the petitioner on bail has been made.

5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioner that petitioner is 35 years old young man who is

behind the bars since last about 2 years 7 months, and as on

date only 6-7 witnesses, out of total 19 witnesses, have been

examined and next date for recording evidence of three more

witnesses has been fixed as 20.3.2023 and, thus, keeping in view

the pace of trial, it has been contended that there is no likelihood

of completion of trial in near future, and, therefore, prayer for

enlarging the petitioner on bail has been made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate

plea for bail, has referred pronouncement of the order dated

1.8.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in a petition for Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3961 of 2022, titled as Abdul Majeed

Lone Vs. Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein

petitioner facing trial for having been found in possession of

1100 grams commercial quantity of charas was enlarged on bail

for suffering incarceration for over 2 years and 5, months

observing that there was no likelihood of completion of trial in

near future; and order dated 12.10.2020, passed by Three

Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.668 of

2020, titled as Amit Singh Moni vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,

whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285

kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons,

was enlarged on bail for having been in detention of 2 years and

7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet

to be examined and last witness was examined in February 2020

and, thereafter, there was no further progress in the trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred

pronouncements the Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan

v. The state of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.5769 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, whereby the accused

under Sections 21(c) and 37 of NDPS Act was ordered to be

enlarged on bail after detention of 1 year and 7 months,

observing that the trial was at a preliminary stage.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on order dated 7.2.2020 passed by the Supreme Court

in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2020, titled as Chitta Biswas Alias

Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal, whereby accused having

found in possession of Codeine mixture above commercial

quantity, was enlarged on bail after 1 year 7 months, at the

stage of trial when out of 10 witnesses, 4 witnesses have been

examined in the trial.

9. Reliance has also been placed on order dated

10.11.2021, passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to

Appeal (Criminal) No. 5187 of 2021, titled as Kulwant Singh v. The

State of Punjab, whereby accused after detention of more than 2

years, was enlarged on bail despite the fact that recovered

contraband was of commercial quantity, for prayer to grant of

bail was on the ground of advanced age of petitioner, period of

custody undergone by him and the fact that trial would take time

to conclude.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance upon order dated 7.12.2021, passed by the Supreme

Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2021, titled as Mahmod

Kurdeya Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, whereby petitioner

apprehended with thousands of tablets of Tramadol X-225, was

enlarged on bail. In this case, quantity of drug recovered was

more than 50 Kilograms. However, in this case bail was granted

by taking into consideration the fact that charge-sheet was field

on 23.9.2018 and thereafter even charges had not been framed

nor trial had commenced till grant of bail to the petitioner,

whereas manufacturer who sold the drug to the accused had

been granted bail.

11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on order

dated 22.8.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave

to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5530 of 2022 titled as Mohammad Salman

Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, whereby Supreme Court

has enlarged the petitioner therein on bail only on the ground

that he had spend about two years in custody and conclusion of

trial would have taken sometime.

12. Reliance has also been placed on order dated

5.8.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1169 of 2022, titled as

Gopal Krishan Patra alias Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India, whereby

the Supreme Court has enlarged the petitioner on bail,

considering the custody of 1 year 7 months undergone by him, in

a case involving offence punishable under Sections 8, 20, 27(a),

28 and 29 of NDPS Act.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred

order dated 28th July, 2022, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1255 of 2022 titled as Puran Chand Vs.

State of H.P., wherein a person, arrested for having possession of

1.996 Kilograms of charas, was enlarged on bail for length of

custody of more than 2 years 9 months.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance upon order dated 4.11.2022 passed by Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2273 of 2022, titled Madan

Lal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused arrested on 27.12.2019, for

having found in possession of 1.695 Kilograms of charas, was

enlarged on bail for non completion of trial and accused had

suffered detention of 2 years 10 months.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted

that petitioner cannot be treated at par with co-accrued Gulshan,

Jatinder and Ashwani Rana who were sitting on the rear seats

and front seat, whereas petitioner was sitting on driver seat and

charas recovered was found kept on the hand break between

two front seats and thus on this ground also grant of bail to the

petitioner has been opposed.

16. Learned Additional Advocate General referring order

passed by the Supreme Court, dated 19.7.2022 in Narcotics

Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 SCC Online SC 891:AIR

2022 SC 3444, has contended that period of detention cannot be

a ground for enlarging the petitioners on bail.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that in Mohit Aggarwal's case huge quantity of 20

Kilograms of Tramadol, against minimum commercial quantity of

250 grams, was recovered, whereas in present case recovered

quantity is little more than commercial quantity. It has been

further contended that the Supreme Court in order dated

11.7.2022 in case titled as Satinder Kumar Antil Vs. Bureau of

Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, has observed that period of

detention is also a relevant factor for considering the bail

application alongwith other factors.

18. Taking into consideration the entire facts and

circumstances, but without commenting on merits thereon and

taking into account factors and parameters required to be

considered at the time of adjudication of bail application as

propounded by the Courts, including the Supreme Court, I am of

the considered opinion that at this stage petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

19. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and

petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to her

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,

upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper

by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated

hereinafter, so as to assure presence of petitioner/accused at the

time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when

required in accordance with law;

(ii) 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that in case petitioner indulges in repetition of

.

similar offence(s) then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution;

(viii) that the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission; and

(ix) that the petitioner shall inform the Police/Court

her contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future.

20. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for

imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition

on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and

thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any

other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem

necessary in the interest of justice.

21. 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.

22. Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions