Road Blockade Due To Heavy Rain A Sufficient Reason For Non-Production Of Witnesses: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that the Kullu-Mandi national highway blockade caused by heavy rain was a circumstance beyond anyone’s control, and the prosecution could not be faulted for not producing its witnesses during that period.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the prosecution cannot be blamed for its inability to produce witnesses when the Kullu-Mandi national highway remained blocked due to heavy rain. The Court observed that such a circumstance was beyond the control of any person and could not be treated as a delay attributable to the prosecution.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while examining the progress of the trial and the reasons for non-production of remaining witnesses, held that “the Kullu-Mandi national highway was blocked because of the heavy rain was a circumstance beyond the control of any person, and the prosecution cannot be faulted for not producing the witnesses due to the road blockade”.
The Bench held that “the examination of eight witnesses within a period of one year and three months does not show any delay in the progress of the trial”, and thus “the plea that the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial cannot be accepted”.
Advocate Rakesh Chaudhary appeared for the petitioner, while Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, represented the State.
Background
An FIR was registered alleging that the police, during patrolling duty, apprehended the petitioner and recovered 2.007 kilograms of charas from a carry bag that he had attempted to push into a drain. The substance was seized, analysed, and found to contain cannabis extract and a sample of charas. The petitioner was arrested and later charge-sheeted.
Charges were framed, and out of fifteen cited witnesses, seven had been examined when the bail petition was filed. The petitioner contended that he had remained in custody for about one year and ten months and argued that the prosecution's inability to complete evidence violated his right to a speedy trial.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and that the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been satisfied. It was also submitted that only six witnesses remained to be examined, and the trial was progressing.
Court’s Observation
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, upon hearing the matter, examined the parameters for granting bail, detailing the jurisprudence governing the principles under the NDPS Act, including the mandate under Section 37.
The Court reiterated that unless the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied, namely, that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, release cannot be ordered in cases involving commercial quantities.
The Court found that the petitioner was apprehended with a commercial quantity of charas and that the material collected by the prosecution was sufficient to connect him with the offence. It further held that nothing on record suggested that the petitioner would not indulge in an offence if released on bail.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding delay, the Court reviewed the certified copies of the order sheets and noted that eight prosecution witnesses had been examined within one year and three months. It then recorded that the Kullu–Mandi national highway had been blocked because of heavy rain, which prevented the prosecution from producing its witnesses on certain dates. The Bench held that this circumstance was beyond the control of any person.
The Court emphasised that the prosecution could not be faulted for non-production of witnesses due to the road blockade and observed that the progress of the trial could not be characterised as delayed in these circumstances.
Conclusion
Holding that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that no delay attributable to the prosecution had been established, the Court dismissed the bail petition.
Cause Title: Man Bahadur Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:34145)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary
Respondents: Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General
