High CourtsSingle Bench

Surinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 13 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 SHI CK 0109

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21, 22
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRMPM No. 1314 Of 2020
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

15 paragraphs · 263 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

Status report has been filed, which is perused and taken on record.

2.

Heard.

3.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of interim bail in FIR No. 81 of 2020, dated 23.06.2020, registered at Police Station

Damtal, District Kangra, under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ND&PS

Act’ for short).

2.

On 07.08.2020, this Court had directed the learned Additional Advocate General to file status report and had also ordered release of the petitioner

on bail in the interregnum, on his joining investigation on 8. 08.2020, at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter as directed by the Investigating Officer.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in terms of the directions passed by the Court, has joined the investigation. This stand

of his has been refuted by learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that though the petitioner did join the investigation on 08.08.2020, but

thereafter, he was instructed to appear for investigation on 09.08.2020, which he did not do. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that

in view of the allegations which are levelled against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is necessary keeping in view the gravity thereof.

4.

Having perused the the status report, this Court concurs with the submission so made by learned Additional Advocate General that keeping in view

the allegations which stand made against the petitioner vis-a-vis his purported involvement in the offence committed, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is necessary. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.