Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. contemplated a bail application filed under Section 439 of CrPC where the applicant was charged under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was on his motorcycle when he was asked to stop by the authorities and was searched. The petitioner who alleged to be a chemist was found with prohibited drug in huge quantity. The police prepared a recovery memo in front of an independent witness. It was the story of the police that the petitioner failed to produce any permit of license of the prohibited drug. The petitioner was arrested soon after and since then he was in custody.

Additional Advocate General of the State, Sumesh Raj, submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the source from where he received the illegal drugs he further strenuously argued that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the bail petitioner, he did not deserve any leniency, rather needed to be dealt with severely.

On the contrary the counsel for the petitioner K.S. Banyal, contended that the drug named ‘lomotil’ which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner was outside the purview of the definition of manufactured drugs as defined under Section 2(xi) of the Act. On the scientific grounds he argued that the preparations of Diphenoxylate calculated as base, and a quantity of Atropine sulphate equivalent to at least one percent of the dose of Diphenoxylate did not fall under the definition of manufactured drugs, as notified by the Government. He further contended that as far as Tramadol the other drug was concerned, the same was of intermediate quantity and as such, rigour of Section 37 was not attracted in the present case. He further contended that for the last four months bail petitioner was behind the bars and there was none at his home to take care of his widow mother.

The Court held that though the offences were of serious nature but considering the age of the petitioner who is very young and his family background and financial background, Court found no reason to let him incarcerate in jail. It was further held that, “Tramadol allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is also of intermediate quantity, rigor of Section 37 are not attracted in the present case and as such, freedom of bail petitioner whose guilt, if any, is otherwise yet to be ascertained/determined by the Court of law on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence, if any, led on record by the Investigating Agency, cannot be allowed to curtail for indefinite period, during trial.” Hence, bail was granted to the petitioner on certain conditions. [Ankit Kumar v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1498, decided on 11-09-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. against the order passed by the State Government whereby petitioner was suspended due to the fact that he was incarcerated in jail.

Petitioner contended that he had already been enlarged on bail and thereby there remains no reason to keep him suspended i.e. the ingredients to continue his suspension under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1999 ceased. Also, there was no charge sheet served upon petitioner. Petitioner relied on the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 where it was settled that suspension should not be allowed beyond a reasonable period.

High Court was of the view that petitioner was suspended under Rule 4(3)(a) of the Rules due to his incarceration in jail and since he was enlarged upon bail and the factual position was changed, thus, suspension order could not have passed after his release. Therefore, petitioner’s suspension order was quashed. [Awadhesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 68, order dated 10-01-2019]

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC praying for grant of anticipatory bail, holding it to be in the interest of justice to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.

The petitioner apprehended arrest in a criminal case registered under Sections 366, 342 and 376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case is made out against the bail petitioner because bare perusal of statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC itself suggest that she had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition and at no point of time, she was forced to join the company of bail petitioner. He prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above mentioned criminal case.

The High Court perused the record and found that the prosecutrix and the petitioner knew each other for a considerable period of time. The prosecutrix was unable to identify the house where the alleged incident happened. The statement of the owner of the house taken on rent by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were living their as husband and wife. The FIR was filed after a period of about two months from the date of alleged incident; this delay remained unexplained. The Court observed it to be a well settled principle that a person, until proved guilty is deemed to be innocent, and such a person cannot be allowed to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed. [Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 204, order dated 6.3.2018]