Rajinder Kumar v. State of H.P

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral): The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 20 dated 23.2.2007 registered at Police Station, Anni under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). The status report has been filed by the respondent.

Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per prosecution story charas weighing

1.400 Kg. was recovered from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The resin percentage given by the Chemical Examiner is 37.48% W/W, and therefore, quantity of actual charas in the alleged recovered stuff is less than the commercial quantity and more than small quantity and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? (cid:133)2(cid:133) therefore, rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in the instant case. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed bail application, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur on 11.12.2007. Another bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 27.3.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another bail application in this court, which was dismissed on 9.5.2008. It has been submitted that after taking into consideration the Chemical Examiner reports, this court has released the accused in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 611, 630 and 756 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since long. The trial is going on slow pace and now the next date of hearing is fixed on 25.10.2008 for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses. It has been submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds as per directions of this court, and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail.

The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application of the petitioner on the grounds that petitioner is involved in a serious case. He is resident of outside Himachal Pradesh, charas weighing 1.400 Kg. was recovered from the petitioner. In case the petitioner is released on bail, he can influence the prosecution witnesses and jump the bail. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution story is that charas weighing 1.400 Kg. was recovered from the petitioner. The resin content in the sample was found

37.48% W/W, as per Chemical Examiner report dated 21.3.2007, (cid:133)3(cid:133) therefore, charas content in the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner comes to less than the commercial quantity and more than small quantity. Hence, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in the present case for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The learned counsel the petitioner has relied Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 611 and 630 of 2008 decided on 7.7.2008. In Cr.MP(M) No. 611 of 2008, charas weighing 1.600 Kg. was recovered from the petitioner but the Chemical Examiner found resin content as

22.30% W/W. In Cr.MP(M) No. 630 of 2008, charas weighing 2.700 Kgs. was recovered from the petitioner from two bags and the Chemical Examiner found resin contents in the samples taken from the two bags 27.79% W/W and 27.62% W/W. In the decision dated

7.7.2008, this court has relied E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau 2008 Crl. L.J. 2250 and Dharam Pal vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 827 and released the petitioners in Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 611 and 630 of 2008 on bail. In Cr.M.P(M) No. 756 of 2008 decided on 4.8.2008, this court has held that refusal to grant bail merely on the ground that the accused hails from another State is not justified. The present case is fully covered by the decisions dated 7.7.2008 rendered in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 611 and 630 of 2008 and dated 4.8.2008 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 756 of 2008.

Any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Dasti copy on usual terms. September 12, 2008. (Hem) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge.