SAINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bail petitioner is a co­accused in FIR No. 14 of 2021, dtd. 27/3/2021, registered under Ss. 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. Through instant petition, she seeks anticipatory bail in this FIR.

(2.) According to the status report:­

(3.) According to the status report, the call detail record was obtained by the investigating agency, which disclosed that the petitioner had talked on phone with Dabey Ram five times on 26/3/2021 and once on 27/3/2021. The petitioner has been alleged to have handed over 1.555 Kgs of cannabis to Dabey Ram on 27/3/2021 for sale. The contraband was later on sold on 27/3/2021 by Dabey Ram for Rs. One lac. As per prosecution case, call detail record reflects exchange of calls between the two. Since the quantity of the contraband involved in the instant case is commercial, therefore, Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, comes into play. Rigors of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act can not be ignored merely because petitioner is a lady. The contraband recovered in the FIR in question falls in the commercial quantity notified under the Act. The adjudication of the bail is, therefore, governed by the provisions of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard can be made to following para of (2018) 13 SCC 813, titled Satpal Singh versus State of Punjab:­