High CourtsSingle Bench

Charna Ram vs The State of H.P.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 February 2012 · Citation: (2012) 02 SHI CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 20, 37
CASE NUMBER
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 114 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

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

4 paragraphs · 435 words

Kuldip Singh, Judge

1.

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 21 of 2011 dated 06.03.2011, registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ( for short the ''Act''). It has been stated that petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. However, allegations are that 800 grams of Charas was recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 9 months. The petitioner filed bail application before learned Special Judge, Kullu, which has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner is habitual offender. It has been stated by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 159/2008, Police Station, Payal, District Ludhiana, but petitioner has been acquitted in that case which was registered under the Act. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail on such terms as this Court deems just and proper.

2.

In the status report, it has been stated that on 06.03.2011 800 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested. As per the report of F.S.L., Junga, the quantity of resin is 33.90 w/w in the Charas which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It has been stated that case is now fixed on 06.03.2012 for recording the statement of Rewati Ram. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

3.

Heard and perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that rigor of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in view of alleged quantity recovered from the petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2011. The petitioner has been acquitted in the case registered against him under the Act at Police Station, Payal. It has not been denied that till now most of the prosecution evidence has been recorded and the case is fixed on 06.03.2012 for further prosecution evidence. The trial is going to be concluded very shortly probably in the month of March, 2012 itself. The grounds of acquittal of petitioner in FIR No. 159/2008, registered at Police Station, Payal, have not been elaborated. In these circumstances, application is dismissed. The learned Special Judge is directed to dispose of the trial of the petitioner expeditiously. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.