Dharampal vs State Of H.P.

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is a habitual offender, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail for concealing commercial

quantity of psychotropic substances in the field, allegedly in his possession.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC for bail before the this Court, but the same was withdrawn by the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

The petitioner has criminal history as one FIR was registered against him in police station, Nalagarh on 24.04.2020 and in another case under the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, he was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan .

Mr. Amar Deep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land in question from where the alleged contraband was allegedly

recovered, does not belong to the petitioner. He has drawn attention of this Court to the affidavits filed by some of the villagers to substantiate that the

petitioner was falsely roped in.

Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has argued that the quantity is commercial and burden is on the accused to come out of

the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which he failed to do so.

The decision of this Court in Satinder Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 391 of 2020, decided on 4th Aug 2020, covers the proposition of law

involved in this case, wherein this Court has held that satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The ratio of the

decision is that to get the bail in commercial quantity of substance, the accused must meet the twin conditions of S. 37 of NDPS Act.

The quantity involved in this case is 84000 tablets of Lomotll and 5700 capsule of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is a huge commercial quantity.

Although, while reading status report, this Court noticed that Investigating Officer has associated only one non-police witness, that is, Pradhan, Shri

Subhash Chand, and non-association of two independent witnesses prejudiced the accused, but the same is a subject matter of trial. The fact that

petitioner was initially convicted in a case under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, however, appeal against the said conviction is still pending. Status report further reveals that

another case FIR No. 145 dated 24.04.2020, under Sections 188, 269, 270 of Indian Penal Code and Section 39(1)(a) of HP Excise Act, Police Station

Nalagarh, is also registered against the petitioner, which shows that he is a habitual offender, dealing with psychotropic substances. A perusal of the

entire petition and criminal history does not entitle the petitioner for bail at this stage.

Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition as and when he so thinks fit.

The petition is dismissed.