AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnesh Oswal, J
The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in FIR bearing No. 110/2020 for commission of offences under sections 8,
20 & 29 of NDPS Act ( for short the Act), after the bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban
(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court).
It is contended in the bail application that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2020 and ever since then the petitioner has been in custody. It is also
contended that the challan stands filed against the petitioner and the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner does not fall
within the category of commercial quantity, therefore, rigors of section 37 of the Act shall not apply.
Response stands filed by the respondents, in which besides narrating the factual aspects, they have stated that the petitioner is involved in heinous
offence as such he is not entitled to grant of bail.
Mr. Bari Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds as taken in the bail application. He has vehemently argued that the
Courts are functioning in a restricted manner and no witness has been examined by the trial court so far, therefore the petitioner deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, Mr. Jamrodh Singh, learned GA has vehemently argued that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence which is threat to the
society, specially to the young generation, as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Heard and perused the record.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the bail application as they emerge from the response of the respondents are that on 25.07.2020 a docket
was produced by SPO Bashir Ahmad on behalf of ASI Om Parkash at Police Station Banihal for registration of the FIR regarding recovery of 850
gms. of Charas from the vehicle that was being driven by the petitioner. Thereafter, FIR No. 110/2020 was registered with the Police Station, Banihal
against the petitioner for commission of offences under section 8, 20 & 29 of the Act and after conclusion of the investigation, the challan was
presented before the trial court on 11.10.2020.
It is evident that the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner was 850 gms (recorded as 700 grams by the trial court in its
order), which is below than the commercial quantity as prescribed by the notification, therefore, rigors of section 37 of the Act are not applicable in the
instant case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in custody from 25.07.2020 and because of restricted mode of functioning of the Courts
due to COVID-19 pandemic, the trial is yet to commence and its conclusion too would take time. The custody of the petitioner is not required for the
purpose of the investigation but only for the purpose of the facing trial. The respondents have also not brought on record any material so as to
demonstrate that the petitioner has earlier been also involved in commission of similar type of offences so this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail
In that view of the matter, this application is allowed. The applicant/petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
(i) subject to furnishing of two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court and personal bond of the like
amount.
(ii) he shall not contact with any of the prosecution witnesses during the trial and shall appear before the trial court.
(iii) he shall not repeat the similar offence in the future.
In the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the respondent can lay a motion for cancellation of bail of the applicant/petitioner
before the trial court.
Disposed of accordingly.