Dalviro vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No. 105 of 2022, dated 30.06.2022, at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). Petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2022.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that on secret information, police searched the residential accommodation of Karan Lodhi on 30.06.2022, in presence of independent witnesses. Karan Lodhi was found at the house. He was residing in the ground floor of the building. On house search, 14.10 grams. of heroin/chitta was recovered from a hidden place. Accused Karan Lodhi was arrested.

As regards the petitioner, it is alleged that she is mother-in-law of accused Karan Lodhi. The house from where the contraband was recovered is owned by Ajay Kumar, husband of the present petitioner. As per police case, accused Karan Lodhi is son-in-law of Ajay Kumar and petitioner. The implication of petitioner is on the basis that she was having knowledge that her son-in-law Karan Lodhi, while residing in her house, was trading in drugs.

The investigation is stated to be complete and only challan remains to be filed. It is averred against petitioner that she is involved in many other criminal cases and about four of them are under the NDPS Act.

On the other hand, petitioner has alleged her implication to be false. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence in the case against the petitioner. The entire investigation has been completed and police has not been able to find any offence against the petitioner. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against her.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the status report.

Status report reveals that the co-accused of petitioner Karan Lodhi was residing in the ground floor of the building owned by his father-in-law. It is not the case of respondent that petitioner and Karan Lodhi were residing together or sharing the same premises for the purpose of residence. The investigation is stated to be complete. The allegation against petitioner only is that she allowed her premises to be used for commission of an offence under the NDPS Act. At the time of search of the premises, petitioner was not found alongwith Karan Lodhi.

Though this Court at the stage of deciding bail application will not minutely scan the material collected during investigation, still the same can be looked into for prima-facie appraisal as to seriousness and gravity of allegations against the bail petitioner. The facts noticed above are only for the purposes of prima -facie appraisal.

The allegation against petitioner is of commission of offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which pre-supposes the existence of knowledge about the commission of an offence under the Act from one’s premises by the other person. The facts constituting knowledge, in the instant case, are yet to be proved in accordance with law during the course of trial.

Evidently, there is no direct involvement of petitioner in the offence. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from her. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. No fruitful purpose shall be served by prolonging the pre-trial custody of the petitioner.

Merely because the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, cannot be the sole ground to reject her bail application in the instant case, when no prima- facie involvement of petitioner is there. Even otherwise, the current status of the earlier cases, in which petitioner is stated to be accused, is not available. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office Chhanni, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. and there is no likelihood of her absconding/fleeing from the course of justice.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No. 105 of 2022, dated 30.06.2022, at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act, on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. This order is, however, subject to following conditions:

i) That the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before the learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.

ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

iii) That breach of any of the bail condition by the petitioner shall entail cancellation of the bail.

iv) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.