The Single Judge Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Satyen Vaidya in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of H. P. has denied the request of pre arrest bail by the petitioner on the ground that the cases registered against the petitioner have been for serious offences like attempt to murder, rape and offences under the NDPS Act and police needs to have the proper access of him for interrogation.
Facts of the Case
Police apprehended a car with three persons and on suspicion, searched the car in presence of an independent witness. 15.13 grams of chitta/heroin was recovered from the vehicle. Case was registered and all the three occupants were arrested. During investigation, it was found by the Investigating Agency that the occupants of the car had procured the recovered contraband from the petitioner after paying him Rs. 40,000/-. Accordingly, petitioner was also named as a co-accused.
Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking pre arrest bail.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel appearing on the behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and is not connected with the crime in question and his implication in the present case is totally false.
Submission of the Respondent
The Counsel appearing on the behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner has a long standing criminal background. He has been involved in 38 criminal cases, including five cases under the NDPS Act.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. The court perused the status report which primarily establishes a link between the occupants of the car and the petitioner.
The Court was also informed by the respondent-State that though, after being admitted to interim bail by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation but neither has he handed over the SIM Card of his mobile to the police for analysis nor has disclosed the source of procurement of contraband by him.
Considering the records and evidences, the Court expounded that the drug menace has attained serious proportion. Even the adolscents have not been spared. Besides being a law and order problem, it has become a serious social issue. Such a serious invasion in the social structure needs to be curbed with heavy hands.
The Court further observed that Petitioner is aged about 44 years and there is age gap between him and other co-accused. The link needs to be probed. The recoveries are yet to be effected from petitioner. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the custodial interrogation of petitioner would be unjustified in this case. Petitioner is not the first offender. He has long list of cases in which he has been allegedly involved. Respondent has provided a list of 38 cases, in which petitioner has remained involved.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea of pre arrest bail and held that petitioner cannot seek parity with other co-accused, who have been granted regular bail after their custody of about one month.
Case Details
Case:- Cr.MP(M) No. 366 of 2023
Petitioner:- Anil Kumar
Respondent:- State of H. P.
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Prashant Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent – Mr. I. N. Mehta
Judge: Justice Satyen Vaidya
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments