The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Dildar Khan @ Sonu Khan Vs State of H.P observed and has highlighted the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail and its sparing use.
The court in the case observed and has reiterated that once a person is declared a proclaimed offender, he is not entitled to the liberty of Pre-Arrest bail.
The bench headed by Justice Rajesk Kainthala made the observed in the said case revolves around petitioner Dildar Khan alias Sonu Khan, who was being accused of possessing a commercial quantity of heroin i.e., 333.63 grams found in a backpack on an HRTC bus. Khan, however, absconded after the police initiated the investigation and was declared a proclaimed offender by the Court.
The counsel, Ashok Kumar Thakur appearing for the petitioner asserted false implication, contending that he had left the spot without objection.
On the other hand, the counsel, Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General highlighted the status of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, presenting CCTV evidence linking him to the backpack and heroin.
Further, it has been argued by the State that the petitioner, having absconded for over a year, posed a flight risk if granted pre-arrest bail.
The bench of Justice Kainthla in the case observed after meticulously examining the arguments presented by both sides referenced P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019, wherein the court observed that Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and should hence be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
The court also referred to the case State of Haryana v. Dharamraj 2023, wherein the bench of Justice Kainthla asserted that a person declared a proclaimed offender loses the right to pre-arrest bail.
The court observed that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner the court noted the presence of CCTV footage clearly showing Khan boarding the bus with the backpack containing the heroin.
The court in its order stated that no explanation has been provided regarding the petitioner having the backpack at the time of the boarding of the bus and just because the backpack was not kept by the petitioner with him does not mean that he was not in possession of the same.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that this coupled with the recovered heroin exceeding the commercial quantity threshold stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, established sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
