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
19 paragraphs · 372 wordsAnoop Chitkara, J
The petitioner, who is in custody for possessing commercial quantity of psychotropic substance, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR No.130 of
2020, dated 7.8.2020, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the
“NDPS Actâ€), in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P , disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under
Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail.
Notice. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
Learned Additional Advocate General, submits that prior to the present petition, petitioner had approached the Court of learned Special Judge-II,
wherein his bail was rejected. He also submits that the petitioner has placed on record the said order, passed in Bail Application No.188-N/22 of 2020.
Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the said order mentions the facts in detail and, as such, he does not intend to file status
report in the present bail matter and would make submissions on the facts mentioned in the said order.
The quantity of drugs involved in this case is 1665 capsules of mark Pervorin spas, total weighing 859.140 grams.
After arguing for a considerable time, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the more appropriate stage for the
petitioner to reveal his defence would be after going through the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. He further submits that if at this
stage, he mentions anything, it may give time to the prosecution to fill in the lacuna and, as such, the petitioner may not be released on bail.
Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act and unless he crosses that hurdle he is not entitled to bail.
Faced with this situation, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present
petition. Prayer not opposed. Permission granted. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to file the same afresh
as and when the petitioner deems it fit.