SHASHI KHANNA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 55 of 2014 dated 21.2.2014 registered at Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 34 IPC and Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that she is an innocent lady and has been falsely implicated in "the case merely on the ground of suspicion. In fact, it is a specific case that she has been arrested only on the ground that one of the accused Gagan Kumar happens to be her son. It is specific case that Gagan Kumar alongwith his family members is residing separately from her and is having a separate ration card and is not even shown as member of her family in the Parivar Register. From the police report submitted in the Court, it appears that on 21.2.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., ASI Tek Chand along with other police officials was going to Mohal side in the official vehicle No. HP-34A-0049. The police party noticed Car bearing registration No. HP-66-3653 parked on the road side with its driver sitting in the vehicle. Another Car (Alto) bearing registration No. HP-34A-7092 was also parked, From the Alto Car, three persons were taking out gunny bags which made the police party suspicious. Accordingly, the police party went to the spot, upon which one person ran away and the other persons including Gagan were apprehended. During the search in all 13 gunny bags full of walnut-bark weighing 338 Kg. were recovered from the Alto Car, which were taken into possession alongwith the vehicles by the police. The further case of the prosecution is that thereafter on 21.2.2014 itself, upon the disclosure statement of the accused Gagan Kumar, 36 more gunny bags of walnut-bark weighing 9.41 Qtl. were recovered. Apart from this, another gunny bag was recovered which contained 7 Kg. of Charas. On the basis of such recovery, aforesaid FIR came to be registered initially against Gagan Kumar.

(2.) The further case of the prosecution is that during the search of the house/shop of the accused Gagan Kumar, it revealed that he was not owner of the house/shop and claimed himself to be the tenant of the petitioner but he could not produce any document of tenancy.

(3.) Though, the aforesaid incident is reported to have taken place on 21.2.2014, the petitioner came to be arrested after 15 days of the incident on 4.3.2014 on the ground that it was the petitioner who was in fact the owner of the premises from where the contraband is alleged to have been recovered.