Noor Mohammed @ Lali vs State Of H.P

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No. 327 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short “the Act”), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Chamba, H.P.

The petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2021. He is accused of having been found in possession of commercial quantity of charas.

Petitioner has submitted that he has been implicated in a false case. His trial has also been delayed. In case released on bail, he will abide by all the terms and conditions, as may be imposed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is permanent resident of Village Khadiyanru, Post Office Kalhel, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding and fleeing from the course of justice.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has strongly opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act are applicable in the case. Accusation against the petitioner is of serious nature. It has also been pointed that even presently twenty seven other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

In order to cross the bar laid under Section 37 of the Act, petitioner has to satisfy the dual test. Firstly, it is to be shown that prima-facie no case is made out and secondly, if released on bail, petitioner is not likely to indulge in any other criminal act during the continuance of bail.

It is more than settled that satisfaction of both the above condition is a pre-requisite for grant of bail to an accused against whom allegations are of being in possession of commercial quantity of contraband. I have gone through the police record and it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie evidence against the petitioner. As per police case, there was a prior information against the petitioner and he was apprehended with more than 1.00 K.G. of charas. The fact that petitioner is involved in twenty seven other criminal cases also makes it difficult for this Court to consider that in case of his release on bail, petitioner will not indulge in any other criminal activity. It is revealed from the police record that most of the cases registered against the petitioner are under Sections 379, 457 and 380 of IPC. It is further revealed that all these cases have been registered at different police stations across the State. Thus, in view of the fact that petitioner has been apprehended with commercial quantity of charas and also in view of his antecedent, petitioner is not entitled to bail.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail be considered on the ground that his trial has been delayed. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2023 to support his contention. The trial of the case is already underway. As per averments made in the petition, seven out of sixteen cited witnesses have already been examined. It being so, it cannot be said that the trial of the case has unduly been delayed. Even otherwise, keeping in view the antecedent of the petitioner, more particularly the fact that the petitioner is involved in as many as twenty seven criminal cases, his case is distinguishable and in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the dictum as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In result, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Any observation made herein above 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 herein above.