SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two separate bail petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been preferred by the same petitioner, i.e. Sunil Kumar, through two different lawyers. In both these petitions, prayer is for release of petitioner on bail in FIR No.164 of 2019, registered on 01.11.2019 under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP.

(2.) Facts regarding simultaneous filing of two bail petitions by one petitioner:-

(3.) During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1303 of 2020 stated that the brief was handed-over to him by a local lawyer, whereas learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1321 of 2020 submitted that he got the brief from the parents/ relatives of the bail petitioner. How in quick succession and at whose instance, the Power of Attorneys of the petitioner (in custody) were obtained is not forthcoming. Learned Additional Advocate General has also stated at the bar that the Assistant Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, has not maintained any record that at whose instance, he had endorsed, attested and issued two Power of Attorneys signed and thumb impressed by the same petitioner. While hearing of the case was in progress, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1321 of 2020 requested for permission to withdraw the bail petition while marking his presence as counsel in Cr.MP(M) No.1303 of 2020 alongwith the original counsel therein. This request was not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1303 of 2020.