Skip to main content

Offence committed at two different places may form part of same criminal conspiracy

In Okechuku Mathew v. State of H.P., 2017, order dated December 29, 2017, High Court of Himachal Pradesh decided a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein it declined to grant the relief of bail as prayed for by the petitioner-accused.

The petitioner was accused in a criminal case filed under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The facts of the case were that 15 gms of heroin was recovered from the possession of the co-accused in this case. He told that he purchased the heroin from the petitioner herein. The incident took place in Kasol, H.P. Police searched the petitioner’s house in Delhi and recovered 1.5 kg of heroin. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire process initiated against the petitioner by the State was illegal and without jurisdiction by the police of the State from a place beyond its jurisdiction and for this reason alone, the petitioner was entitled to be granted bail.

The High Court perused the record and was of the opinion that the recovery was made in the course of investigation which the police was conducting pursuant to the arrest of the co-accused in Kasol. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the process initiated against the petitioner by the State was illegal, void and without jurisdiction was without any merit because it was in the course of investigation of an offence committed in the State of H.P. in which involvement of the present petitioner was alleged, that the petitioner was apprehended with huge quantity of heroin in Delhi. The offence committed by the petitioner at New Delhi and the one committed at Kasol formed part of the same criminal conspiracy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more