Gaurav Mangla vs State Of HP

Anoop Chitkara, J

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

FIR No

Dated

Police Station

Sections

348

09.11.2020

Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

22, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act

The petitioner, upon his arrest for selling prohibited psychotropic substances without licence and bills to the main accused, from whose possession the police had recovered the same, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following petitions for bail:-

Bail application filed before Special Judge Nalagarh, was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2021.

Cr.MP(M) Nos.101 and 983 of 2021, filed before this Court were dismissed vide orders dated 04.02.2021 and 04.06.2021, respectively.

In Para 10 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 find bank transactions between the petitioner, his family and his co-accused, which led to his arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following arguments:-

That the money of Rs.3, 20, 000/- was in fact the return of the money as detailed in paragraph-5 of the petition.

That all the accounts mentioned at page Nos. 81 to 133 of the bail petition absolve him.

That he is in jail since 18.11.2020.

That he is the sole bread earner of the family.

That his mother is ill and he is the only male member in the family to look after her.

That his wife has given birth to a daughter, who needs his care.

Regarding first argument of Rs.3,20,000/- the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was return of money, but for return, there had to be the first transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to show that the transaction was through some Dharampal. However, that is absolutely subject to evidence and it prima facie does not discharge the burden laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The second argument is regarding entries mentioned at page Nos. 81 to 133 are consequential given the findings on point No.1. In case involving commercial quantity, this Court can give bail only when Section 37 of the NDPS Act's conditions are fulfilled with and not on the general grounds as has been argued.

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.