Kans Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.143/2021, dated 08.09.2021, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

The prosecution case is that on 08.09.2021, a police party was patrolling the area within its jurisdiction. At about 4.30 p.m. near Railway Crossing

Milwan, while police personnel were chatting with Pradhan and Up-pradhan of Gram Panchayat Milwan, they noticed a lady coming on foot from

Railway Crossing side. She was holding a bag in her hand. Seeing police personnel, she apparently became perplexed and changed the direction of her

footsteps. Finding her actions suspicious, a female constable present in the patrolling party, was sent after her. Immediately thereafter, the lady threw

the bag held by her on the road side and also threw a packet taken out from her shirt. She was nabbed and identified as Mandeep Kaur. Her search

was carried out in accordance with law. During her search, 31.1 grams of Heroin was recovered, which led to registration of FIR in question. She

was arrested on 08.09.2021.

During investigation, accused Mandeep Kaur statedly disclosed that the recovered contraband was procured by her from one Kans Raj (bail-

petitioner). On the basis of her statement, the call detail record of the mobile phones, used by accused Mandeep Kaur and the bail-petitioner, was

obtained by the Investigating Agency. The CDR reveals that calls were exchanged between the two on the day in question. This led to incorporation

of Section 29 of the NDPS Act in the FIR. The bail-petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated with the offences in question. The contraband was

recovered from Mandeep Kaur and not from the bail-petitioner. Co-accused Mandeep Kaur, from whose possession the contraband was recovered,

has already been granted bail by the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 01.10.2021, therefore, the case of the petitioner, who is a

co-accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, deserves to be considered accordingly. Learned counsel further submitted that the bail-petitioner will

abide by the terms and conditions of the bail and shall not make any threat, promise or inducement to the prosecution witnesses.

Opposing the bail plea, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the bail-petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, nine cases under the

NDPS Act have been registered against him. The bail petitioner has violated the conditions of the bail and, therefore, does not deserve to be enlarged

on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

No doubt, the quantity of contraband, involved in the FIR in question, is 31.1 grams of heroin, falling in intermediate category under the NDPS Act,

and the main accused Mandeep Kaur, from whose possession the contraband was recovered, has been enlarged on bail on 01.10.2021, however, the

case of the petitioner stands on different footing. The bail petitioner is the person who had allegedly supplied the contraband to the main accused

Mandeep Kaur. As per status report, the call detail record procured by the Investigating Agency during investigation, establishes frequent exchange of

calls between the two on the day in question. Main accused is stated to have procured the contraband from the bail petitioner. The bail petitioner

appears to be a habitual offender. The following cases have been shown to be registered against the bail petitioner:-

“(1) FIR No.177/09 U/S 15-61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 900 grams chura post (2) FIR No.294/11 U/S 15-61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 4 kg &

100 grams chura post, (3) FIR No.271/12 U/S 15,29-61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 43kg & 950 grams chura post (4) FIR No.86/16 U/S 21-61-85

ND&PS Act, involving 5.50 grams heroin (5) FIR No.36/17 U/S 21-61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 5.50 grams heroin (6) FIR No.148/17 U/S 21-61-85

ND&PS Act, involving 5.70 grams heroin (7) FIR No.287/18 U/S 21-61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 5.37 grams heroin (8) FIR No.189/20 U/S 21,22-

61-85 ND&PS Act, involving 8.70 grams heroin & 28 tablets of LORZAPAM and (9) FIR No.51/15 U/S ND&PS Act.â€​

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in FIR No.294 of 2011, the bail petitioner has been acquitted and in

FIR No.177 of 2009, he has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months alongwith fine. Be that as it may, it is apparent that

the bail petitioner has not mended his ways. He has not attempted to reform himself despite having been repeatedly granted bail in various cases

registered against him. He has violated the bail conditions.

In the facts of the case, it will not be appropriate to exercise the indulgence in favour of the bail petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, finding no merit,

the bail petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition, in accordance with law, at an appropriate stage.