Prem Singh vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, for possessing commercial quantity of 2.369

Kg. of Charas (Cannabis), has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petition:

(a) Cr.MP(M) No.1013 of 2021, filed by the petitioner before this Court was withdrawn by him vide order dated June 4, 2021 and he was granted

liberty to file fresh after annexing the police report.

In Para 11 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the police recovered 2.369 Kg of Charas (Cannabis) from A-1, Kuldeep Kaushik, when he

was travelling in a bus. The police arrested him and registered FIR mentioned above. After his arrest, the Investigator interrogated A-1, Kuldeep

Kaushik. In the interrogation, the Investigator came to know about involvement of the bail petitioner, Prem Singh, who had sold the alleged charas to

Kuldeep Kaushik. After that the Investigator came to know about involvement of A-2, Lalit Kumar alias Shiv Nath. The investigation further revealed

the telephonic conversation between these three persons. Based on such evidence, the Investigator arrested A-2 Lalit Kumar alias Shiv Nath and A-3,

Prem Singh, the present bail petitioner.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence collected against the petitioner is legally inadmissible. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further

contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence in the nature of call details between all the three accused.

Further, the quantity involved is commercial, and S. 37 of the NDPS Act's restrictions do not entitle the accused to bail. The accused has yet not

discharged the presumption under S. 35 of the NDPS Act. The crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a

wrong message to society.

REASONING:

In this case, the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C stands filed. The petitioner has also annexed summery of such report with the bail

petition as Annexure P-2. A perusal of summery of report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C as well as status report reveal about the numerous calls

between the three accused. A glance of the petition nowhere explains the reasons for such calls. There is no other explanation to come out of the

rigors of S. 37 of NDPS Act. The stand that the accused is in custody is also not a legal ground to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of NDPS Act. Given

above, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per newspaper reports, the State of Himachal Pradesh is legalizing cannabis (Charas), subject to the

rules and regulations framed in this regard. Be that as it may, the petitioner may explore what benefits such rules, regulations, and the policy change

might apply to the persons involved in the commercial quantity of charas (Cannabis). The policy change may open new possibilities for bail to the

persons involved in the commercial quantity of charas (Cannabis) by making out the new grounds for bail. Thus, it shall be open for the petitioner to

file a new bail petition pointing out the new grounds in the changed scenario if it happens. He may also file another application on changed

circumstances or with better particulars.

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.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new

petition on the same cause of action or different grounds.