KESHAV RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 10/1/2022, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 39/2021 dtd. 14/5/2021, registered at Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., under Sec. 18 of the NDPS Act, respondent-state has filed the status report. ASI Ramesh Chand, P.S. Nirmand, has also come present with the records. Records perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, states that though pursuant to order dtd. 10/1/2022, petitioner has joined the investigation, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parities and perused material available on record, this court finds that on 14/5/2021, police party while on patrolling duty found cultivation of 5000 opium plants at village Jarot (Kateri), Kullu. With a view to ascertain the ownership of the land, police besides doing videography and taking pictures of the fields also contacted ward member Smt. Jamuna Devi, but she was unable to disclose the name of the owner of the fields, where allegedly, illegal cultivation of opium plants was being carried out. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police lodged FIR as detailed herein above, against the unknown persons, but subsequently, got the demarcation of the land done from the revenue authorities, wherein it transpired that land in question is in possession of the present bail petitioner and as such, he came to be named in the FIR. Record made available to this court reveals that illegal cultivation of opium plants was found on khasra No. 2531, which is still joint inter-se the present bail petitioner Keshav Ram and Bhagat Ram, but since petitioner had been cultivating the land, police has registered case against him. As per report of demarcation, land comprising khasra No. 2531 was found to be in possession of the present bail petitioner Keshav Ram and Bhagat Ram and as such, this court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that till the time, it is ascertained, by way of cogent and convincing evidence that present bail petitioner was cultivating the land in question, mere on the basis of revenue entry, wherein bail petitioner alongwith person namely Bhagat Ram, was shown to be cultivating the land in question, cannot be made the basis to conclude his complicity. Since as per status report and record made available to this court, land in question has been shown to be in cultivation of the present bail petitioner and person namely Bhagat Ram, it is not understood that how and on what basis, investigating agency has found the petitioner herein to be cultivating the land in question. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are required to be considered and decided by the court below in the totality of the evidence collected on record by the investigating agency, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who otherwise in terms of order dtd. 10/1/2022, has made himself available for investigation. Record made available to this court nowhere suggests that in past also, petitioner has been indulging in such like activates and as such he being first offender deserves some leniency. 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. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner's being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.