Gaurav Mangla vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who claims to be a chemist, is in judicial custody for selling prohibited psychotropic substances without licence and bills to the main

accused, from whose possession the police had recovered the same, which led to arrest of both of them and now has come up before this Court under

Section 439 CrPC, for grant of bail for the reasons that he has not committed illegal act.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 04.01.2021, Ld.

Special Judge, Nalagarh, dismissed the petition because the quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of co-accused Dharampal is 19

carton boxes of Tramadol capsules total 5700 capsules and 14 cartons boxes of Lommotil 84000 were found, which were alleged to be supplied by the

present petitioner, clearly indicating that the same was not for self consumption. Drugs/capsules have become a whole time recreational drug for new

generation. The prime cause of such addiction is its easy availability of these syrups/capsules. Rather it was meant for sale to the public.

In Para 7 of the bail application declares the petitioner having no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 08.11.2020, the police recovered 84000 tablets of Lomotil and 5700 capsules of Tramadol

Hydrochloride from Dharampal, which led to registration of FIR mentioned above. During investigation, he revealed that he has purchased the tablets

from the bail petitioner. After arresting the petitioner, police was able to found bank transactions between the petitioner, his family and his co-accused,

which led to his arrest.

Mr. Vijay Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner is a chemist and as a routine work, selling drugs and medicines to

the main accused, as such, he has not committed any offence. He has handed over photocopy of the petitioner having enrollment No.006781. His

other argument is that wife of the petitioner is expected to deliver a baby somewhere in February, 2021, as such, he be given bail.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to

society.

The argument that the wife of the petitioner is about to deliver a baby in the month of February, 2021, would not entitle him for bail for possessing

commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. As far as registration of the petitioner as pharmacist is concerned, that may not be in dispute. What

is in dispute, whether he sold the medicines under licence and in compliance with the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act or not, which makes

such transactions penal under NDPS Act. The petitioner has failed to discharge such burden.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned

above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

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.

The petition is dismissed.