Sandeep Kumar @ Happy vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

For selling 15.47 grams of Heroin to the main accused, and now apprehending imminent arrest on being arraigned as an accused, the present

petitioner has come up under section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

Based on the complaint of ASI Sartaj Singh, the police registered FIR No. 85 of 2020, dated 20.6.2020, under Sections 21-29-61-85 of NDPS Act,

in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.

I have read the status report(s) and heard counsel for the parties.

FACTS:

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 20.6.2020, ASI Sartaj Singh accompanied with the Police party were on patrolling duty. At

about 9:00 p.m., when they were present, about 300 meters ahead of village Tyora Mand Myani, at a lonely place, they saw a motorbike coming

towards them on which two persons were riding. They stopped the motorbike and on checking their credentials, they disclosed their names as Balbir

Chand and Nardev Singh. During this process, another motorbike came towards them and on seeing the Police party, he got perplexed, on which ASI

Sartaj Singh got suspicious that he might have some contraband. This person disclosed his name as Sherudeen. When his motorbike was checked, the

Police got one transparent polythene containing white and brown cloured substance and on checking with Drug Deduction Kit, the same was found to

be Heroin. On weighing, the substance was found to be 15.47 grams. On being inquired, Sherudeen told the Police that when he was in jail for

allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, he met a person named Sandeep Kumar (petitioner herein), resident of Gann Pind,

Punjab. They became good friends and also exchanged their mobile numbers. On 20.6.2020, Sandeep Kumar called him at Nirthal, where he had

taken 15.47 grams of Heroin from him. He further told him that he will inform, to whom the same is to be supplied. During investigation, the Police

collected the call details of Sherudeen and Sandeep Kumar, which proved that they were in touch with each other. According, the present FIR was

registered against the petitioner.

PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY

As per the petition and the police report the accused involved himself in the following cases:-

(i) Case FIR No.28/2020 under Sections 21-29-61-85, registered in Police Station, Damtal, Kangra.

(ii) Case FIR No.17/2020 dated 17.2.2020, under Sections 336, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station,

Damtal, Kangra.

However, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the offences mentioned in these FIRs are not that serious, to deny him all future bails, in

similar offences. He further submits that conditions may be put that in case the petitioner repeats the offence, this bail may be canceled.

SUBMISSIONS:

Learned counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the allegations are false and concocted and he is joining and fully co-operating the investigation.

On the contrary, Ms. Divya Sood, learned Deputy Additional Advocate General, contended that the Investigator has come across sufficient prima

facie evidence against the petitioner and opposes the bail. She further submits that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be

subject to very stringent conditions.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:

a) In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows:

“It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of

which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant

or refusal of bail.â€​

b) In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds:

“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a

constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure

established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody

during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21

since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in

spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a

person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a

change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier

applications being rejected, the courts can do so.â€​

c) In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand , AIR 1977 SC 2447, Supreme Court holds:

“2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting

the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks

enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when

considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime.â€​

d) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Supreme Court in Para 16, holds:

“The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course.â€​

e) In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, Supreme Court holds:-

“1. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent

until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific

offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of

our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever

expression one may wish to use) is an exception.

However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion

of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately.

Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.â€​

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. S. 2 (xxiii-a)

defines a small quantity as the quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined

category, which is now generally called as intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which specify an offense, also mention that minimum

and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. Commercial quantity mandates minimum sentence of ten years of

imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act.

The contraband involved prima facie is not a commercial quantity. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not apply in the present

case. Resultantly, the present case is similar to other instances of the grant of bail in a penal offence.

Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a

crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s)

and witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused,

society, and State.

The nature of the offence also does not restrict bail. The incarceration of the accused during the period of trial is neither warranted, nor justified,

or going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, coupled with the ongoing situation due to the Covid-19

pandemic, would make out a case for bail.

The possibility of the accused influencing the course of the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of

fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative conditions and stringent conditions.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to the imposition of following stringent conditions, which shall be over

and above, and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, connected with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing a personal bond of INR 10,000/,

(INR Ten thousand only), with one surety for INR 5,000 (INR Five thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Investigator/ SHO of the concerned

Police Station. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The Attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),

WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).

b) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any superior officer. Whenever the investigation takes place

within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM. The

petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

c) The petitioner shall join and cooperate in the investigation, and failure to do so shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory

bail granted by the present order. (Kala Ram v. State of Punjab, 2018 (11) SCC 350).

d) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police

officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

e) Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on

the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.

f) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioner about the date of hearing in the concerned Court, even if it takes place through

SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the Court.

g) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may inform the Petitioner about such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail.

h) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable

the accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioner about such Bailable warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp

message/ E-Mail.

i) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants to procure the petitioner's

presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper.

j) In case of Non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal

amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after

forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall

entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that

the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR, and

during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.

k) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within

thirty days from such modification, to the police station of this FIR, and the concerned Court, if such stage arises.

l) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that

even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.

m) During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats the offence or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more,

then the State may move an appropriate application for cancellation of this bail.

n) The petitioner shall surrender all firearms along with ammunitions, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days

from today. However, subject to the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back, in case of

acquittal in this case.

o) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the

petitioner. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial.

16.The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all

conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.

In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for

modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking

cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

In Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitutional Bench concluded by holding as follows:

“(2) As regards the second question referred to this court, it is held that the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at

the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there

are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of

statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court

has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence

(including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose

conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged

on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive

conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit

the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be

invariably imposed.â€​

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance

with law.

The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other case(s) registered against the

petitioner.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The Investigating Officer attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of

this Court, or accept a copy attested by an Advocate, which shall be sufficient for the record. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy

of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Advocate General if they ask for the same.

In return of the protection from incarceration for breaking the law, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable

behavior.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.