KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, Kuldeep Chand, who is behind bars since 15.1.2020, has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No. 116, dated 10.12.2019, under Ss. 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dated 21.8.2020, reveals that on 9.12.2019, Police after having receive secret information laid Naka near Pahli road and allegedly stopped car bearing registration No. HR-26AU-1919, but before same could be checked, allegedly the occupants of the car having seen the police, fled away from the spot. As per status report, police checked the car in question in the presence of independent witness and allegedly recovered 61.800 kg of poppy straw. After completion of investigation, Police registered FIR, as detailed herein above at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu. Subsequently, on the basis of registration number of car involved in the incident, police apprehended the bail petitioner on 15.1.2020, who disclosed to the police that aforesaid car was sold by him to co-accused, Bittu. As per status report, bail petitioner disclosed that on 9.12.2019, he had gone to Banjar alongwith Bittu, in order to purchase poppy straw for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid alleged disclosure made by the petitioner, he came to be named in the FIR alongwith other co-accused and since 15.1.2020, he is in jail.

(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to fiing of Challan in the competent Court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency rather the bail petitioner needs to be dealt with severely as such, petition may be rejected outrightly. Mr. Thakur further contends that since other accused Bittu, who is otherwise brother-in-law of the bail petitioner, is absconding, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner at this stage, who otherwise, in the event of being enlarged on bail, may again indulge in such activities.