PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 8/3/2021, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 30/21 dtd. 4/3/2021 under Ss. 20, 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, registered at PS Dehra, District Kangra, HP, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof clearly reveals that on 4/3/2021, at around 5:35pm, police party patrolling near Naleti noticed a person carrying a rucksack.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to order dtd. 8/3/2021, bail petitioner has already joined the investigation and is fully cooperating. Besides above, status report itself suggests that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner. Though, learned Additional Advocate General while making this Court peruse the status report vehemently argued that the present bail petitioner is a drug paddler, but there is no mention in the status report that in the past also, case, if any, under the NDPS Act, stands registered against the bail petitioner. Otherwise also, precise allegation against the bail petitioner is that he sold small quantity of charas to co- accused Vivek and Vineet, but such fact is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence and mere allegation is not sufficient to conclude complicity of the bail petitioner in the alleged crime, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that in past, bail petitioner had been indulging in such like activities. Mere telephonic conversation inter-se co-accused and the present bail petitioner cannot be made ground to conclude/rule out complicity, if any, of the petitioner in the instant case, which otherwise in any eventuality is required to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Leaving everything aside, quantity of contraband allegedly recovered in the instant case is small and as such, rigours of Sec. 37 of the Act are not attracted. Hence, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of interim bail deserves to be considered, especially when other co-accused, from whose conscious possession contraband was recovered, already stands enlarged on bail.

(3.) Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the Investigating Agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears to be no justification for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner, who otherwise in terms of order dtd. 8/3/2021, has made himself available for investigation. Otherwise also, as per status report investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, there appears to be no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law.