BHOM BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 123/2019 dated 1.6.2019 under Section 21 of ND&PS Act (in short "the Act") registered at P.S. Sadar, District Solan, H.P.

(2.) In terms of order dated 13.5.2020, respondent-State has filed/uploaded status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency, perusal whereof reveals that on 1.6.2019, police after having received secrete information raided the residential house of the bail petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 6.27 grams of Heroin/Chitta. Police apart from aforesaid quantity of contraband also recovered three used foil papers, one insulin syringe and folded currency notes. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record on behalf of the petitioner for possessing aforesaid contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, registered FIR, as detailed herein above, against the bail petitioner under Section 21 of the Act on 1.6.2019 and since then, he is behind bars.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the State through Video Conferencing contends that though investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant for bail may be rejected out rightly. Mr. Bhatnagar further contends that though in the case at hand, quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is small, but his conduct, which is evident from call details report, clearly reveals that he is in the illegal trade of Narcotics and as such, it would be not in the interest of society at large to enlarge him on bail at this stage. While referring to the record, Mr. Bhatnagar contends that it stands duly admitted by the bail petitioner that he had gone to Delhi for buying Heroin/Chitta from some foreign national and as such, it would not be safe to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail because in the event of his enlargement on bail, he may not only abscond from trial, but may also indulge in such like activities again.