LAWS(HPH)-2018-2-10

AMRU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On February 27, 2018
Amru Ram Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 234 of 2017, dated 14.10.2017, under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND & PS Act, Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. It is further averred that the petitioners have nothing to do with the recovery and the police has instituted a false case against them. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, thus they may be released on bail, as they are ready and willing to join the investigation.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 110.2017, police were present in connection with patrol duty at place Cheedmod. Police spotted a person and that person after seeing the police threw a packet and started running towards Manikarn. Police apprehended him and he disclosed his name as Saleem. Despite best efforts no independent witness could be associated and on checking the packet thrown by the said person it was found to be charas and on weighment it was found to be one kg and 180 grams. Police conducted the sealing formalities. The person, who was nabbed by the police, divulged that the charas was given to him by Amru and Lekh Raj for selling at Kasol-Manikaran to Ram Bahadur Nepali and the sale proceeds were decided to be divided equally. As per the police, petitioners are absconding after the arrest of Saleem and the call details prove that they were constantly in touch with Saleem. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that as the investigation is at the initial stages and the role of the petitioners is yet to be ascertained, they may not be enlarged on bail and the bail applications may be dismissed.