Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: October 13 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 October, 2023

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                               1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                   Cr.M.P.(M) No.2347 of 2023

                                   Date of Decision: October 13, 2023
Labh Chand                                                                   ...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.Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:                Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
                                   Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate
                                   General.


Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking

provisions of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in

short 'Cr.PC'), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 56 of 2022

dated 27.02.2022, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short

'NDPS Act') in Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur H.P.

2 Status report stands filed. Record was also made

available.

3. In the status report, the circumstances in which the

petitioner has been arrested have been narrated in detail.

4 According to prosecution case, petitioner Labh Chand

was arrested on 28th February, 2022 on the basis of disclosure

statement made by main accused from whom charas was

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

recovered and after obtaining the Call Details Report, it was

found that petitioner was in contact of Mahesh Kumar from whom

the charas was recovered.

5 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner

is behind the bars since last about 1 year and 8 months and he

has been arrayed as an accused only on basis of disclosure

statement and Call Details Report, and there is no other material

on record against the petitioner and therefore, petitioner

deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order

dated 10.01.2022 passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave

to Appeal (Crl.) No.242 of 2022, titled as State by (NCB)

Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta & another,

wherein taking note of earlier judgment passed by the Supreme

Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC

1, Supreme Court has upheld grant of bail to the accused

persons, who were arrayed as accused and arrested on the basis

of disclosure statement of co-accused only, but without having

any admissible evidence against them except the disclosure

statement of co-accused and Call Detail Records (CDRs).

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed

reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Supreme Court in

Pulluabid Ahamad Arimutta's case, which read as under:-

"9. Having gone through the records along with the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the

petitioner/NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations leveled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondents in CLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamal 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 some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16 th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th 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 filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for

petitioner that petitioner is ready to abide by any condition

imposed by Court for assuring his presence after his enlargement

on bail.

9 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in

view of information placed on record in the status report,

involvement of petitioner is yet to be established by leading

cogent and reliable evidence in trial Court. There may or may not

be any involvement of petitioner in transportation of contraband,

but for suspicion only the petitioner may not be kept behind the

bars during pendency of trial as no direct or indirect link has

been brought in the notice of Court at this stage except that co-

accused Mahesh Kumar and petitioner belong to same District

and known to each other.

10 Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts

and circumstances, but, without commenting on merits thereon

and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded

by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered

at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion

that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this

stage.

11 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on

bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum

of Rs. 2 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction

of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also

subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for

ensuring her presence during trial including the following further

conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(iii) 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 her 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;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(v) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(vi) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected;

(vii) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;