Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/1454/2017 of RAVI CHOPRA Vs STATE OF HP on 28 December 2017
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1454 of 2017. Date of decision : 28.12.2017 ____________________________________________________________ Ravi Chopra ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ..…Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1454 of 2017. Date of decision : 28.12.2017
____________________________________________________________
Ravi Chopra ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ..…Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Thakur and Mr. K.S. Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ASI Man Chand, I/O, P.S. Sadar, Hamirpur, present with records.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 64 of 2017 dated 17.3.2017, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. investigation have been produced.
Status report has been filed and the records of the
3. Mr. K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even in case the prosecution is taken to be correct, even then, the recovery of the alleged contraband from the petitioner is far less than commercial quantity and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
____________________
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes
4. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and not only involved in another case being FIR No. 36 of 2015 registered against him at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P. on 29.12.2015 under Sections 21, 29 of the ND& PS Act, but he is also an accused in case FIR No. 233 of 2012 dated 28.8.2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, under Section 379 and 511 IPC. He further argued that it was after obtaining the bail in earlier case registered against the petitioner under ND & PS Act i.e. FIR No. 36 of 2015 that the petitioner has repeated the offence and the mere fact that the contraband allegedly recovered is not of commercial quantity would not by itself be a ground to grant the bail to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the investigation.
5. It is not in dispute that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. It is also not in dispute that apart from the present case, two other cases as mentioned aforesaid, are already pending against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner appears to be a habitual offender. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any fresh ground to grant bail in his favour.
6. Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the bail petition is dismissed. However, anything said hereinabove, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
December 28, 2017. (GR)