High CourtsSingle Bench

Pankaj vs State Of H.P

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 18 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 SHI CK 0056

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21, 25, 29, 37
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No.1029 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

50 paragraphs · 1,000 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

Petitioner is co-accused of possessing 9.21 grams of heroin recovered from a Pick-up vehicle driven by him. Therefore, FIR No.50/2021 was

registered against him and co-accused Sh. Trilok Negi on 04.06.2021 under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report.

3.

The case as set out in the status report is that a police party was on routine inspection duty on 04.06.2021. At around 4:50 am, near New Bus Stand

Rohru, it noticed a pick-up coming from Anupam Hotel side. The vehicle was signalled to stop. It had two occupants and was being driven by the

petitioner. The adjoining seat was occupied by co-accused-Trilok Negi. The pick-up was carrying some mattresses and furniture. The occupants of

the vehicle were asked about the reasons for violating COVID-19 curfew. Since they did not satisfactorily respond to the questions, therefore, police

personnel considered it appropriate to carry out search of the vehicle. All codal formalities required in law were complied with before carrying out

search. As requested by the accused persons, the search was carried out in the presence of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rohru in consonance with

law. During search, from the dashboard of the vehicle, a polythene was recovered, which contained contraband. On the basis of their experience, the

police party determined the recovered contraband as heroin. This was also confirmed by the Drug Detection Kit. The contraband weighed 9.21 grams

on the electronic scale. This recovery led to registration of the FIR. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2021.

During investigations, the accused persons are stated to have disclosed having procured the contraband from one Sh. Deepak. From the status report,

it appears that the petitioner and co-accused were taken by the Investigating Agency to Pinjore/Chandigarh in search of said Deepak, however, his

whereabouts have not been traced so far.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated with the offences. In any case the investigations, insofar

as the petitioner is concerned, is complete. Nothing remains to be recovered from him. He is aged around 22 years. His further incarceration in jail is

not necessary in the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in case of his enlargement on bail, the petitioner will

not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper the prosecution evidence and will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon

him by this Court.

Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is guilty of possessing contraband heroin, therefore, he be not enlarged on

bail. However, he also submitted that in case this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then the same be made subject to stringent conditions.

5.

As per the status report, petitioner is accused of possessing 9.21 grams of heroin. The weight of the contraband falls in commonly known as

‘Intermediate’ quantity, but is nearer to 5 grams notified as small quantity under the NDPS Act. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS

Act will not be attracted. A perusal of the status report reflects that the petitioner is drug addict and not drug peddler. Status report does not mention

any criminal past of the petitioner. Investigation in the matter is almost complete. Trial of the case will take sufficient time. The petitioner is aged 22

years and is resident of Village Petarli, Post Office Sindasli, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, his presence can be

ensured in the trial. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special

Judge, Shimla, subject to the following conditions:-

(i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii). The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with

the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(v). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in

the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

(vii). It is made clear that in case the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in future, in any FIR under NDPS Act, then this bail is liable to be

cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. This shall also be considered as a negative factor for

consideration of his future bail application, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made

hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.