AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 543 words.
Anoop Chitkara, J
The petitioner, who is under incarceration for the last one year and above two months, for purchasing and possessing 2 kilograms and 135 grams of charas, has come up before this Court seeking bail.
Based on a First Information Report (FIR), the police arrested the petitioner, on 13.04.2019, in FIR No.33 of 2019, dated 13.04.2019, registered under Section 20 read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act, in Police Station, Banzar District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offenses.
Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General had filed the status report through e-mail, printout of which is available on file. He further submits that he had sent a copy of the status report to learned counsel for the petitioner on WhatsApp number.
I have read the status report(s) and heard Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of H.P., and Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate, Amicus Curiae.
The allegations in the First Information Report and the gist of the evidence collected by the Investigator are that on 13th April 2019, the Police Party was conducting patrolling and had erected/laid a barricade in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Banjar. At around 1.00 p.m., the police party noticed a truck coming, which they signaled to stop. There were two occupants in the truck, one driver and another sitting on the seat next to the driver. After that the I.O. asked the driver to show the documents of the truck. On seeing the police, both of them became perplexed, which arose suspicion in the mind of the I.O. and he decided to check the truck. After that the police associated one person as independent witness and in his presence inquired name of the driver of the truck, who revealed his name as Anil Kumar, the petitioner herein.
The other person sitting with him revealed his name as Om Prakash. On checking the truck, the police noticed that the person sitting next to the driver had kept one carry bag between his legs. On opening the same, the police recovered charas, which on weighing was found 2 kilograms 135 grams. After that the police completed the procedural requirement of the NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. and arrested both the accused. The police added Section 25 of the NDPS Act, on investigation, the police found that both of them were involved in purchasing the charas.
The quantity involved in the present case is commercial quantity. Consequently, Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into operation. The petitioner has failed to cross the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to make out a case for bail. Therefore, there is no merit in the bail petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application as and when he wants to do so. In case he proposes to file such application before trial Court then this order shall not come in the way of the trial Court.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.