TALBE RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Sec. 439 CrPC, bail petitioner Talbe Ram, has approached this Court, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 23/19 dtd. 1/2/2019 under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dtd. 30/1/2023 reveals that on 31/1/2019 at 10:30 p.m, police stopped bus bearing registration No.DL1PC-4550 for checking. Since during checking, passengers sitting on seats No.1 and 2 got perplexed and tried to hide something beneath their seats, police after having associated independent witnesses effected their personal search as well as of bag kept beneath their seats and allegedly, recovered one bag, containing 2 kg. 225 grams of charas. Since passengers sitting on seats No. 1 and 2 were unable to render proper explanation qua the possession of the aforesaid commercial quantity of the contraband, police after registration of FIR, arrested the accused on 1/2/2019 and since then, the bail petitioner is behind the bars, whereas other co-accused namely Megh Singh already stands enlarged on bail vide order dtd. 12/1/2023 passed in CrMP(M) No. 39 of 2023. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

(3.) Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently states that contraband was never recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather from the bag kept beneath his seat and as such, he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that it is yet to be established on record that bag kept below the seat occupied by the bail petitioner was belonging to him and till the time said fact is not proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence, bail petitioner is deemed to be innocent. He further submits that otherwise also, petitioner deserves enlargement on bail on account of delay in conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of today, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined out of twenty prosecution witnesses. While inviting attention of this court to the order dtd. 12/1/2023, passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 39/2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused already stands enlarged on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial and as such, petitioner being similarly situate also deserves to be enlarged on bail.