0

A woman caught with 6.12 grammes of heroin was granted bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court.

A woman caught with 6.12 grammes of heroin given bail, upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, in the case of  Kiran vs State Of Himachal Pradesh, (CRMPM No.2069 of 2020).

 

Brief facts of the case:

woman taken into custody at her brother’s residence following a search warranted by prior information. When she threw something down the bathroom sink drain, it missed. Her brother had left the house through the back door.

The detecting equipment confirmed that the material she threw was 6.12 grammes of heroin. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against her per Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985).

JUDGEMNET:

Observed that the petitioner has been incarcerated for approximately four months and that the amount of heroin purported to have been found from the petitioner is 6.12 grammes, which is somewhat more than the legal minimum of 5 grammes. “Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that incarcerating the petitioner will serve no useful purpose at this time,” stated Justice Thakur.

The Court has also taken into account Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Court to release such a person on bail in cases where, under normal circumstances, others may not be released. This section stipulates that a person under the age of 16 years, a woman, or a sick or infirm person shall be treated differently from others and that the Court shall have the authority to release such a person on bail.

Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon posting a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one local surety in the same amount within two weeks of today, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall make herself available during the enquiry and trial on each and every date required by law,

(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly provide any incentive, threat, or promise to any person familiar with the facts of the case in order to deter him/her from reporting such information to the court or to any police officer, or tamper with the evidence.

Therefore, she shall not attempt to intimidate, coerce, or coerce the prosecution witnesses in any way.

(iii) That the petitioner would not impede the proceeding of the trial,

(iv) That the petitioner shall not commit a comparable offence to that of which she is charged or suspected.

(v) That the petitioner should not in any way abuse her freedom,

(vi) The petitioner must not skip bail,

(vii) She must continue to advise the police of any changes to her address, landline phone number, and/or mobile phone number, if any, to ensure her availability to the police and/or during trial.

(viii) The petitioner may not leave India without the Court’s permission.

Other conditions deemed essential in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, should be imposed on the accused-petitioner.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view you judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat