Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 November, 2023

Author: Sushil Kukreja

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 2331 of 2023 Reserved on: 06.11.2023 Decided on: 22.11.2023

Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439

of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail

in case F.I.R. No. 149/2023, dated 16.07.2023, registered at

Police Station Sadar-Solan, District Solan, H.P., under

Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act").

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

16.07.2023, while the police party was on routine patrolling

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

duty and reached near Annu Village bifurcation road, they

received a secret information that Nihal Thakur, resident of

Village Annu, is involved in the business of selling chitta/

heroin and if his house is searched, huge quantity of

chitta/heroin could be recovered. Accordingly, the police party

associated Narender Kumar and Constable Puneet Kumar,

No. 552 as witnesses in the proceedings and went to the

house of Nihal Thakur at Village Annu. On reaching the first

floor of the building, a person came out of the room, who

disclosed his name as Nihal Thakur. Thereafter, the police

entered the room of the accused and underneath the

mattress on the bed, one waist bag was found concealed. On

opening the same, light brown coloured substance was

recovered, which was chitta/heroin. On weighment, it was

found to be 20.65 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all

the codal formalities and FIR as detailed hereinabove was

registered against the accused and he was arrested. During

interrogation, the accused disclosed that he had purchased

the chitta/heroin from Pawanpreet Singh @ Guri at Mohali for

a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- through Google Pay on

mobile No. 78374-03561. The police searched Pawanpreet

Singh @ Guri and arrested him on 20.07.2023. During

investigation, he disclosed that he had purchased the

chitta/heroin from Gurwinder Singh and made payment on

mobile No. 94780-01006, which was found registered in the

name of Ajay Kumar (petitioner herein). On 24.07.2023, the

petititioner was arrested and during investigation, it was

found that for the last five months, a sum of Rs. 22,52,303/-

has been deposited in the account of the petitioner, who used

to work as a DJ and out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.

22,22,057/- had been withdrawn and transferred to other

accounts.

3. The bail petition has been filed on the ground

that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated

in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that investigation in this case is complete and

nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the

petitioner, as such, he is required to be released on bail. He

further contended that one of the co-accused namely

Manpreet Kaur has already been released on bail and as

such, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail on

the ground of parity.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General

opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in

view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been

committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged

on bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and

have also gone through the record of the case. The perusal of

the record indicates that the quantity of chitta/heroin, involved

in the present case is 20.65 grams, which is an intermediate

quantity and allegedly recovered from the possession of

accused Nihal Thakur. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case. The

petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2023 and since then he is

behind the bars. There is no evidence on record to suggest

that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or

will flee from justice, if released on bail. Moreover, the trial

may take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, no

fruitful purpose will be served if the petitioner is kept behind

the bars for an unlimited period. Furthermore, one of the co-

accused namely Manpreet Kaur has already been released

on bail and as such, the petitioner also deserves to be

released on bail on the ground of parity.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and since the quantity of heroin involved in this

case is 20.65 grams, which is an intermediate quantity and

the same was not recovered from the conscious possession

of the petitioner, this Court finds that the present is a fit case

where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is

required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail

application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who

has been arrested by the police, in case F.I.R. No. 149/2023,

dated 16.07.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar-Solan,

District Solan, H.P. under Sections 21 & 29 of NDPS Act, shall

be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing

personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac),

with one local surety of district Solan, in the like amount, to

the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is

subject, however, to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

(ii) that he 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 any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

(iv) that he will not repeat the offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him.

(v) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

(vi) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

7. Needless to say that the Investigating agency

shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the

bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the

petitioner.

8. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given

in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the

merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by

any observations made therein.

9. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of

the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan,

through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of

bail in the e-prison software.

10. In case, the petitioner is not released within a

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the

Superintendent, District Jail Solan, is directed to inform this

fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent,

District Jail Solan, is further directed that if the petitioner fails

to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this

Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact

be submitted to this Court.




                                                         (Sushil Kukreja)
November 22, 2023                                           Judge
      (raman)

                DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL


VIRENDE
                PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF
                HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=

3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd9 7b9e2898117bfa738990a0ea7ba,

R PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4ab ef4b84983689d027cb645c9bb134, CN= VIRENDER BAHADUR

BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document Location: