SIDHARTH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 06/2019 dtd. 10/2/2019 was registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'NDPS Act"). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence. The police concocted a false case against the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ludhiana. His bail was cancelled by the learned Trial Court due to non-appearance and since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 10/2/2019 when a vehicle bearing registration no. HP01-D-5875 came from Fediz Bridge at 3:30 pm. The driver revealed his name as Sandeep. The occupant revealed their names as Sidharth Sharma and Naresh. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a carry bag containing 852 grams of charas. The police arrested the occupants and seized the charas. As per the result of the analysis, the substance was found to be charas containing 27.77% w/w resin in it. The police presented a challan against the petitioner on 30/5/2019 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the proceedings under Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. The petitioner had even tried to run away from the custody of the police and FIR No. 199/2023 dtd. 18/9/2023 was registered against him for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 224 of IPC. The petitioner had absconded and he is not entitled to bail; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Manoj Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.