LAWS(HPH)-2021-6-24

VISHAMBER ISIAH STRIESAND Vs. STATE OF H. P.

Decided On June 23, 2021
Vishamber Isiah Striesand Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extant bail application has been instituted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Through, the extant bail application, the petitioner seeks his being granted, the, facility of bail in connection with FIR No. 30, of 17.2.2017, lodged under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. The seizure as made from his alleged conscious and exclusive possession weighs commercial quantity thereof.

(2.) Earlier, the petitioner had cast Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019 before this Court. The afore Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 13.03.2019. The bail petitioner challenged the afore made order by this Court, upon, Cr.MP (M) No. 198 of 2019, through his instituting SLP (Crl.) No. 4047 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the verdict made by this Court, on 13.03.2019, upon, Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019. The verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, SLP (Crl.) No. 4047 of 2019, on 08.05.2019 is extracted hereinafter:- "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed. However, we expect the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the matter. In case trial is not concluded within one year from today, liberty to the petitioner to again apply for bail before the trial court. A copy of the order be sent to the trial court."

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended with much vigour before this Court, that since the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, the afore SLP, was made on 8.05.2019, and, when therein it has been mandated that in case the trial arising from FIR No. 30, of 17.02.2017, containing offences committed under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., is not concluded, within one year to be computed from 08.05.2019, thereupon, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to again apply for bail before the learned trial Court. Consequently, he argues that since in pursuance to the afore liberty reserved to the petitioner, he proceeded to apply for bail before the learned trial Court, hence, the dismissal of his bail, application by the learned trial Court, through an order made on 23.05.2020, is, per se bad in law.