Ram Saran vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

For supplying commercial quantity of cannabis to the main accused, petitioner has also been arraigned as an accused in FIR No.80/2021, dated

16.06.2021, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) at Police Station

Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. Instant petition has been filed by him under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As per status report:Â​

2(i) Sh. Prem Singh and Sh. Gulab Singh are the other two co accused in the aforesaid FIR. As per the status report, on a tip off, the investigating

agency on 16.06.2021 carried out search of accused Prem Singh’s premises. During search, accused Prem Singh as well as co accused Gulab

Singh were present in the house. Search was carried out in accordance with law after observing all codal formalities. Cannabis weighing 8.490 kgs

was recovered from accused Prem Singh’s premises. This recovery led to registration of the aforesaid FIR and arrest of co accused persons on

16.06.2021.

2(ii) During investigation, accused Prem Singh disclosed that a resident of Chandigarh had demanded 8Â9 kgs cannabis from him. Accused Prem

Singh procured 7 kgs cannabis from coÂaccused Gulab Singh and requested bail petitioner Ram Saran for supplying more cannabis. Accused Prem

Singh further disclosed that on 15.06.2021, he called bail petitioner Ram Saran and requested him to supply cannabis. On 16.06.2021 at around 5.19

A.M., Ram Saran reached near coÂaccused Prem Singh’s home, called and informed him that he had brought the cannabis. Bail petitioner

thereafter sold 1.5 kgs of cannabis to co accused Prem Singh @ Rs.80,000/ per kg. After selling the cannabis, bail petitioner went away from the

place.

2(iii) This 1.5 kgs of cannabis sold by bail petitioner to accused Prem Singh was part of 8 kg 490 grams cannabis recovered from the co accused

Prem Singh’s premises on 16.06.2021.

2(iv) The investigating agency obtained call detail record and ascertained that accused Prem Singh had called the bail petitioner on latter’s mobile

telephone number on 15.06.2021 at 9.44 A.M., 9.43 P.M. and 10.11 P.M. Similarly the bail petitioner had also called coÂaccused Prem Singh on

latter’s mobile telephone number on 15.06.2021 at 9.43 A.M., 9.45 A.M. and 8.57 P.M as well as on 16.06.2021 at 5.19 A.M. As per the status

report, at around 5.19 A.M. on 16.06.2021 the tower location of the mobile phones used by coÂaccused Prem Singh and by the present bail petitioner

was of same location i.e. Choki Tihri, where coÂ​ accused Prem Singh’s premises was located.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for conferment of ad interim anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner has participated in the

investigation. He submitted that petitioner was running a mobile shop in Mandi and it is in that context that the petitioner was in contact with the coÂ‐

accused Prem Singh.

Learned Additional Advocate General while opposing the bail plea, argued that the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner is required for proper

and effective investigation of the matter.

The contraband recovered in the FIR in question is 8 kg 490 grams, which falls in the commercial quantity notified under the Act. The adjudication

of the bail is, therefore, governed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard can be made to following para of (2018)

13 SCC 813, titled Satpal Singh versus State of Punjab:Â​

“14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS

Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the

order under Sections 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of

satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21.09.2017 is only

to be set aside and we do so.â€​

Petitioner at this stage fails to make out a case in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. After looking into the status report and without going into the

merits of the same at this stage, lest it causes prejudices to the case of either party, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is necessary in the case at this stage for proper and effective investigation of the matter. Therefore, present petition for anticipatory bail

is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made above are only confined to the disposal of this petition.