Anoop Chitkara DECISION
Anoop Chitkara, J.
COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
1. Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on 9.8.2020, in FIR No. 126 of 2020, dated 9.8.2020, registered under Section 304, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), and, in Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.
2. The petitioner's criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of greater than seven years of imprisonment or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years: The contents of the petition and the status report do not reveal any criminal history.
3. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 9.8.2020, when the Police officials were present near Court complex, Theog, then they noticed the dead body of a youth. Further investigation revealed the deceased to be Shubham Dharmaik, aged 18 years. On the search of the body, from the lowers, the police recovered a plastic syringe with bent needle. The police took the same into possession and after that filled inquest report and dispatched the body for postmortem examination. Subsequently, after tracing the mother of the deceased the police recorded her statement, which has led to the registration of the FIR. The mother of the deceased revealed that his son had left home along with his friends Anish Chauhan and Naman. On 8.8.2020 at 12/1 p.m., when she called her son, he told that he will return home soon. After that she tried to call him, but his phone was switched off. She further stated that her son was drugs dependent and came to know about the death of her son from the police officials. The Police interrogated the friends of the deceased namely Anish and Naman. Naman was 14 years of age and the age of Anish was 17 years, hence were juvenile delinquents. In the investigation, they revealed that on 8.8.2020, they had traveled in the vehicle of bail petitioner Nitesh Verma and then all four of them took injection of Chita (Heroin/Diacetylmorphine). After taking the injection, Shubham became unconscious in the vehicle itself. Subsequently, they brought the vehicle near the house of Naman and placed him in the room. When they returned in the evening then they noticed that Shubham had expired. Subsequently, they became afraid and keep his dead body at the spot from where the police had recovered the same.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.
5. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court grants bail, such order must be subject to conditions, especially of not repeating the criminal activities.
ANALYSIS and REASONING:
6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, MANU/SC/0045/2005 : 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail, if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its........