TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, filed under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in F.I.R. No.15 of 2021, dtd. 7/1/2021, registered under Ss. 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS ) Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case simply because he unfortunately happened to be the pillion rider alongwith the main accused from whom the contraband was actually recovered. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal history and is in custody for more that two and half years. He stated that the trial also is not proceeding at the desired pace as out of the twenty three prosecution witnesses, as of now statements of only seven witnesses have been recorded. He further informed the Court that now the next date fixed before the learned Special Judge for recoding the statements of three witnesses is 12/9/2023 and as right to fair and speedy trial is the fundamental right of the petitioner, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances the present petition may allowed and the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail.

(3.) Opposing the bail petition, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught alongwith the other accused in possession of commercial quantity of contraband and as the release of the petitioner at this stage would be deterrent as far as the fair trial is concerned, because there is each and every possibility that if released on bail, the petitioner may try to win over or influence the prosecution witnesses, the petition deserves to be rejected. Learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that otherwise also as the traps of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act come into play in the present case as the contraband is commercial quantity, therefore also, the petition deserves to be dismissed, as the investigation which has been carried out clearly points out towards the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and prima facie satisfaction as is required under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be recorded by the Court to the effect that the petitioner is not guilty of having committed the alleged offence.