DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Petitioner, presently in custody, as an accused in FIR No.151/2019, dated 21.11.2019, registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Dharampur District Solan, H.P., is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.)In para-7 of the bail petition, it has been stated that the petitioner has not filed any other bail petition on similar grounds either in this Court or any other Court of law in India. The exact wording of paragraph-7 is extracted hereinafter:-
"7. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition on the similar grounds either in this Hon'ble Court or any other Court of law in India."
Whereas in the status report filed by the respondent/State, it has been mentioned that the petitioner on an earlier occasion also had preferred a bail petition in this Court, which was rejected on 20.02.2020, by Hon'ble Single Bench No.8. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General has made available a copy of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Bench No.8, (now, Hon'ble Single Bench No.7), in Cr.MP(M) No.257/2020, dated 20.02.2020. Paragraphs No.7 and 8 from the judgment are extracted hereinafter:-
"7. The substance recovered from the accused is 14.46 grams of Heroin. The petitioner, following the requirement of law, has placed on record the copy of order of previous bail application in a case registered against him vide FIR No.90 of 2018, dated 10.12.2018, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, in Police Sta-tion Kasauli, Distt. Solan, HP. It reveals that although the quantity recovered inthat case was small, but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli had given bail to him on the condition that the accused shall not commit any similar offence. Despite the clear cut warning by the Court, the petitioner still repeated similar offence. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner reveals that he is a habitual o ffender and consequently the playing field for the habitual offender is rough in comparison to the playing field of the first offender being smooth.
8. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, no case for bail is made out at this stage. Resultantly, the present petition stands dismissed. The dismissal of this bail shall not come in the way of the petitioner filing a subse-quent bail petition after the filing of police report under Section 173 CrPC, either before this Court or the trial Court, as he may so desire."
(3.)Petitioner was required to clearly indicate in the bail petition about all the previous bail petitions preferred by him. Instead of giving particulars of his previously preferred bail petitions, the instant petition denies petitioner having preferred any bail petition. Petitioner has not shown respect to law. His conduct is reprehensible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not imparted correct instructions in this regard while preparing and filing the present bail petition, rather the present bail petition has been filed on the basis of instructions imparted to him by the petitioner's sister.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.