Rajveer v. State of H.P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Dec 2009
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that 18.850 Kilograms charas was recovered from the car (cid:133)3(cid:133) in which he was sitting along with three more persons. It has been…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. D.K.Goswami, Advocate with Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No. 37 dated 7.1.2009 registered at Police Station, Manali, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short, the Act). The status report has been filed.
Heard and perused the record. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 27.1.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the report was lodged at 11.45 p.m. on 27.1.2009 by way of FIR No. 37 of 2009 at Police Station, Manali. The petitioner has committed no offence. The case has been registered just to drag the petitioner into the matter. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.1.2009. The petitioner earlier filed bail Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? (cid:133)2(cid:133) application, which was rejected by learned Special Judge, Kullu on
25.11.2009. According to the petitioner, it is the case of the prosecution that it was already dark and therefore, it was not possible to recognize a person. There is no independent witness of the incident. The alleged contraband was not recovered from the petitioner. There is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. It has been submitted that investigation in the case is complete.
The bail application has been opposed by learned Assistant Advocate General. It has been stated that a car coming from Manali side and proceeding towards Kullu was stopped on
27.1.2009 at 6.30 p.m. by the police party headed by ASI Lal Chand. The car was checked, a person opened the rear window of the car and ran away towards river Beas, who could not be apprehended. The person sitting on the driver seat in the car disclosed his name Purshotam and another person sitting in the rear seat of the car disclosed his name Pardeep Kumar. On search of the car, charas weighing 18.850 Kilograms was recovered, sampling and sealing was done on the spot and the case under the Act was registered. Purshotam and Pardeep were arrested on 27.1.2009 and the car was taken into possession. Rajveer who ran away from the sot was arrested on 28.1.2009 from Bhuntar bazaar. The learned Assistant Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Operative part
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that 18.850 Kilograms charas was recovered from the car (cid:133)3(cid:133) in which he was sitting along with three more persons. It has been submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General that three persons including the petitioner have been arrested but the fourth accused Jiwan Lal has absconded and till now he has not been arrested. The petitioner ran away from the spot by opening the rear window of the car which creates suspicion of his involvement for carrying charas in the car. The quantity of charas recovered from the is 18.850 kilograms as per the prosecution. In circumstances, rigour of Section 37 of the Act is applicable. The petitioner has earlier filed bail application, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, Kullu. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 29, 2009. (Hem) ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 20, 29.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 29 Dec 2009. The bench was KULDIP SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.