Amit Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 132 of 2020 dated 27.8.2020 registered in Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 20, 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred as "NDPS Act" for short).

On the first date of hearing on 9.9.2020, ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner is an accused in the case for supplying charas of intermediate quantity i.e. about 100.17 grams, which is slightly more than small quantity, to co-accused Kaku Khan.

In response, State has filed status report, wherein apart from details of prosecution case, it has also been mentioned that petitioner Amit Kumar had also filed a similar application for anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that aforesaid material and relevant information has not only been withheld, petitioner has also made false averments in para 7 of the petition.

In present petition, filed on 7.9.2020, duly supported by affidavit of petitioner, in para 7, it has been stated that no other similar application on same and ground has been filed by the petitioner in any other Court of law except the present application before this Court. Petition as well as affidavit filed in its support, are duly signed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that as per instructions imparted to him, the counsel engaged at Bilaspur was asked not to file application on behalf of petitioner and in these circumstances, averments in present application containing in para 7 were made. But at the same time, for want of instructions, he is not in a position to disclose as on which date application before Special Judge, Bilaspur was listed and decided.

Petitioner is also not present in person, so as to impart proper instructions to his counsel and also to disclose the true and correct facts to this Court.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. In my opinion, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw this petition at this stage.

In aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, present petition, not only for absence of the petitioner but also for filing false affidavit, deserves to be dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances stated supra, Registrar General of this Court is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps, if warranted, to initiate action/proceedings against the petitioner within four weeks.

Needless to say that petitioner has right to file an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case he is arrested by the Police in present case and in such eventuality the said application shall be considered and decided on its own merits at relevant point of time.

Petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.