Kedar Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 64/2022, dated 06.08.2022, under Section 15-61-85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘ND&PS Act’), registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 06.08.2022, a police team of Special Investigation Unit, Nahan received secret information that petitioner was indulging in trade of poppy straw. Compliance under Section 42(2) of ND&PS Act was made. Two independent witnesses were associated and in their presence, police team visited the shop of the petitioner at place Nielkhad. Petitioner was found present in the shop. On search 5.270 Kg Poppy Straw was found in a gunny bag kept inside the shop. The case was registered and the petitioner was arrested.

In the status report filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that investigation has been completed and challan remains to be prepared. It is also revealed from the status report that on earlier occasions also petitioner has been involved in criminal activities. He is an accused in case registered vide FIR No. 11/2022, dated 27.01.2022, under Section 39(1) A HP Excise Act and case registered vide FIR No. 19/2022, dated 17.02.2022, under Section 15 & 20 of ND&PS Act & Section 39 1(A) H.P. Excise Act of the same police station i.e. Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.

On the other hand, petitioner has claimed himself to be innocent. As per petitioner, he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed for grant of bail to him.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report as well as record of the case.

As per notification specifying small and commercial quantity issued by Government, at entry No. 110, up-to 1000 grams of Poppy Straw is small quantity and 50 Kg and above is the commercial quantity. Thus, the quantity of Poppy Straw recovered in the case is of intermediate quantity. Rigor of Section 37 ND&PS will not be applicable.

Non application of Section 37 ND&PS Act does not by itself entitle the accused for grant of bail. The merits of each and every case have to be assessed from its own facts and all attending circumstances.

The menace of drug addiction is not only law and order problem, but has developed as a serious social issue. The adolescents are easy preys and are found to be most vulnerable to the vice of drug addiction. The evil has spread its tentacles everywhere and needs to be checked at all levels.

The facts of the case prima facie suggest that the Poppy Straw recovered from the petitioner was not kept for self consumption. It is hard to believe that for self consumption a person would keep more than 5 kg of Poppy Straw in a gunny bag in his commercial establishment. The evident purpose of the petitioner was commercial use of the contraband. Petitioner is stated to be aged about 56 years. It cannot be expected from a person of this age that he would not be knowing the consequences of keeping the contraband in his commercial establishment. This suggests the blatant abuse of law on part of the petitioner.

Another fact which is worth noticing is that petitioner has been found involved in criminal activities in short succession. The first FIR was registered against him in January, 2022, second in February 2022 and the present one in August, 2022. Meaning thereby, after enlargement of bail in one after the other case, he has not stopped his indulgence in illicit activities. The Court granting bail to the accused of an offence always expects that he will not indulge in similar activities in future. In the case of petitioner, contrary is writ large. Such person does not deserves any leniency. The release of petitioner on bail will send wrong signal in the society. Repeated indulgence of a person in similar kind of offence in short succession is a relevant factor to reject his bail plea.

Keeping in view the entirety of circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.