Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has been arrested on 22.09.2020 for recovery of 7 grams heroin/Chitta thrown by him in the bushes, on noticing the police party, after

registration of FIR No.144 of 2020 dated 22.09.2020, in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ in short). By way of present petition, filed under Section 439 Code

of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), he has approached this Court for enlarging him on bail.

Status report stands filed, wherein sequence of events in which petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in aforesaid FIR and has been arrested,

have been narrated.

Apart from it, it is also stated in the status report that for commission of similar criminal offence an FIR No.81 of 2019 dated 06.12.2019 has been

registered against petitioner in Police Station Sadar, Pathankot, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It is further stated that since the year 2000 till

date, father of the petitioner has been found to be accused in 15 cases under H.P. Excise Act and in four cases under NDPS Act.

According to the status report, not only father of the petitioner, but his mother is also an accused in four cases registered under NDPS Act. Further

that brother of the petitioner Akash Kumar is also an accused in two cases i.e. one case under NDPS Act and another under Excise Act. Lastly, it is

stated that family of the petitioner is doing illegal business of supply of drugs and intoxicants in the Society and, thus, a prayer for bail has been

opposed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that criminal cases registered against the petitioner in the past cannot be a ground for denying him

bail in present case, particularly keeping in view quantity alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner and so far as alleged commission of

offence by his other family members is concerned, that is their individual act and petitioner has nothing to do with that.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that though registration of FIR in the past may not be a ground for rejecting bail, however, criminal

history of accused and his family is an important factor for deciding his bail petition. He further submits that it is evident from all cases registered

against father, mother and brother of the petitioner and also involvement of petitioner in the past for commission of offence of the same nature, family

of the petitioner is doing business of drugs supply.

Petitioner has been arrested in September 2020 and he has moved an application before learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District

Kangra, H.P., for enlarging him on bail and same has been rejected on 16.10.2020, in Bail Application No.280-D/XXII/2020, titled as Kuldeep Kumar

vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh. Copy of judgment of learned Special Judge has also been placed on record.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, balance in comparison to private interest lies in favour of social interest, and thus petitioner is not

entitled for bail at this stage.

In view of above, without entering into the merit and rival contentions of parties, I find that at this stage, enlarging the petitioner on bail shall have an

adverse impact on the Society. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.