SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Sandeep Sharma,J. -
(1.)Bail petitioner namely, Sanjay Kumar, who is behind the bars since 11.1.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.10/2018, dated 11.01.2018, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act), registered at police Station, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
(2.)Close scrutiny of status report filed in terms of order dated 23.12.2020 and record made available to this Court by the respondent-State, reveal that on 11.1.2018, police party during traffic checking stopped a truck bearing registration No. HP-33-C-4122 being driven by co-accused Rangila Ram. Since above named driver as well as present bail petitioner Sanjay Kumar, who was one of the occupant of aforesaid truck got perplexed after seeing the police, police allegedly after having associated two independent witnesses namely, Rajinder Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, conducted search of accused named hereinabove as well as of their vehicle and allegedly recovered 4 Kg.500 grams charas from one bag kept behind the driver seat. Since, no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record by the driver of the truck as well as present bail petitioner qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, against the bail petitioner as well as other co-accused Rangila Ram and since then they are behind the bars. Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and till today six prosecution witnesses out of total 16 stand examined, whereas statements of remaining 10 prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded. Petitioner herein has approached this Court for grant of regular bail on the basis of the statements made by two independent witnesses associated by the police at the time of effecting recovery from the truck in question. Since both the recovery witnesses have totally denied the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail pending trial.
(3.)Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, who vide order dated 23.12.2020 was specifically directed to verify the correctness and genuineness of copies of statements of prosecution witnesses placed on record, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to statements made by the prosecution witnesses, especially two recovery witnesses namely, Rajinder Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, contends that since some of the material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it would be too premature to conclude that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that though challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected outrightly. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may also again indulge in such activities and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.