SALMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Salman Khan, who is behind bars since 13/7/2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail in case FIR 104 of 2021, registered at PS Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, under Ss. 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dtd. 26/7/2021, reveals that on 13/7/2021, police after having received secrete information raided the house of the petitioner and allegedly, recovered one bag kept in almirah, containing 15 strips of tablet namely PARVION SPAS, 7 strips of PYEEVON-SPAS PLUS and four strips of SPASMO-PROXYVON PLUS. In total, 242 capsules/tablets came to be recovered from the almirah kept in the house of the bail petitioner. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record by the bail petitioner qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of prohibited drug, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, registered FIR detailed herein above against the petitioner on 13/7/2021 and since then, he is behind bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail

(3.) Mr. Kamal Kishore Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He further submits that since huge quantity of prohibited drugs came to be recovery from the conscious position of the petitioner, it cannot be accepted that prohibited drugs were kept by the petitioner at his room for his personal use, especially when he failed to place on record prescription slip, if any, given by a doctor. Lastly, Mr. Kamal Kishore Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since petitioner has committed offence having adverse impact on the society, it would be not in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail may not only flee from justice, but would also indulge in such like activities again and as such, prayer for grant of bail at his behalf may be rejected.