VIKAS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING Bail petitioner Vikas, who is behind bars since, 22.11.2017, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail in FIR NO. 275, dated 22.11.217, under Ss. 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Respondent-State has filed status report in terms of order dated 09.12.2020, perusal whereof reveals that on 22.11.2017, police party present at Naka laid at Suma Ropa, stopped a car bearing registration No. PB-13AP-0721, being driven by the person namely Sumit Jindal, for checking. Since above named driver as well as other occupants of the car got perplexed on seeing the police, police deemed it proper to carry out personal search of the occupants of the car as well as of the car in question. Person namely Puran Chand, who had reached the naka driving his car, was associated as an independent witness by the police before carrying out search of the occupants of the car as well as driver of the car and allegedly, police recovered 3.25 kgs of charas from the front seat of the car on which co-accused Raj Kamal was allegedly sitting. Since occupants of the car were unable to render proper explanation with regard to possession of the aforesaid commercial quantity of the contraband, police, after completion of necessary codal formalities registered FIR detailed herein above against all the accused and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars, whereas, co-accused Raj Kamal though was released on medical grounds but now he is stated to have expired. Vide order dated 12.11.2020, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1772 of 2020 another co-accused, who was driver of the vehicle in question, namely, Sumit Jindal stands enlarged on bail.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Bhatnagar, while inviting attention of this Court to the status report contends that since there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, commercial quantity of charas came to be recovered from the car, being driven by co-accused Sumit Jindal, in which the bail petitioner was one of the occupant. Mr. Bhatnagar further contends that otherwise also, rigours of S.37 of the Act are attracted in the present case as such, prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. While admitting the factum with regard to recording of statement of recovery witnesses in the Trial Court, Mr. Bhatnagar contends that since only six prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, at this stage, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice but may also dissuade remaining prosecution witnesses from deposing against him.