Pardeep Kumar vs State Of H.P

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.

39/21, dated 23.03.2021, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Karsog,

District Mandi, H.P.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a Driver and drives his own Bolero vehicle, which on 23.03.2021, was hired by a group of ladies of Village

Tharmi to visit a temple at Village Shwad, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner started his journey to Shwad temple in the early morning hours

and reached the temple at 9:30 a.m. After dropping the ladies near the temple, he went to Anni to purchase fertilizers. He thereafter came back and

started his return journey with the ladies around 11:00 a.m. He was asked by the ladies to stop at the residence of one Desh Raj, who was related to

the ladies, as they wanted to have lunch at the residence of Desh Raj. Thereafter, the petitioner again started his journey and Desh Raj requested the

petitioner to drop him at Village Tharmi. Desh Raj alongwith one Mansa Ram sat in the back portion of his vehicle. After dropping all the passengers,

petitioner went to deliver the fertilizers at Village Gwalpur. Petitioner belongs to a respectable family and does not has any criminal history. He came

to know that an FIR has been registered against Desh Raj under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police

Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and that Desh Raj had falsely implicated him also in the matter, simply because the quantity with which Desh Raj

was apprehended by the Police was commercial quantity. According to the petitioner, no recovery is to be effected from him and as nothing was

found from his conscious possession, therefore, rigours of Sections 37 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not

applicable. As per the petitioner, when he came to know about his name being dragged in the controversy, he made an application to the Director

General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, praying for fair investigation of the case, copy of which is appended with the present petition also. He also filed

an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of learned Special JudgeÂII, Mandi, H.P., which stood

dismissed by the said Court on 22.04.2021, whereafter, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and further

as he does not has any criminal history, he deserves to be released on bail. Mr. Rattan while drawing the attention of the Court to the statutory

provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has argued that the statutory requirement of said Section also

contemplates that in case there is no criminal history of the accused, then he can be granted bail. He further submitted that name of the petitioner has

wrongly been dragged in the controversy by Desh Raj and as the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged against him, he be granted

anticipatory bail.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the case is not as simple as is being portrayed by the petitioner. In

fact, on the date in issue, i.e., 23.03.2021, a Police party from SIU of Narcotic Bureau, Mandi was on its way from Mandi to Karsog on general

patrolling duty. At around 2:30 p.m., three persons were found standing on a small Bridge (Puli) at Tharmi towards Mahog at some distance from

Village Tharmi. They had placed a Boru ahead of them and as soon as they saw the police, two out of the three persons ran towards the jungle,

leaving behind the bag, whereas the third person, who tried to run in the opposite direction with the bag in his hand was overpowered by the police. As

it was suspected that this person was in possession of some narcotic substance, search was carried out by the police by following the procedure

prescribed under the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which led to recovery of 9.692 Kgs. Charas in total. After completing all

the codal formalities, the cannabis was taken into possession and an FIR was registered. At the spot itself, Desh Raj, i.e., the person who was

apprehended by the police at the spot disclosed the name of other two persons as Tek Chand and Pardeep Kumar, i.e., the present petitioner. On

these bases, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the version put forth by the petitioner is concocted and taking into consideration the

fact that a huge haul of cannabis has been recovered in this case, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner, as

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Learned Additional Advocate General has further argued that as

from the date of registration of FIR, the petitioner is evading arrest and even after rejection of the his bail petition by the Court of learned Special

JudgeÂ​II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., he is still evading his arrest.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents appended with the bail petition as well as the status report.

Whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him or not is but natural a matter of trial. As per the case of the prosecution, the

incident in which the petitioner is stated to be one of the accused, has led to recovery of 9.692 Kgs. of charas . The amount of cannabis recovered is

not only a commercial quantity, but huge commercial quantity. Not only this, it is very surprising that after registration of the FIR, till date, the police

has not been able to arrest the petitioner.

At this stage, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that in case the present bail petition filed for grant of

anticipatory bail is rejected by the Court, then the petitioner shall voluntarily surrender before the Police.

Be that as it may, as already referred hereinabove, taking into consideration the fact that haul involves recovery of 9.692 Kgs. of charas and further

as the petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily convince the Court that there was any cogent reason with Desh Raj to have had falsely implicated

the petitioner in the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail and this Court concurs

with the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of

investigation of the case.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.