PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, filed under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 55/2022, dtd. 7/3/2022, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Ss. 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7. 03.2022 a rukka was received at Police Station Baddi that on 7/3/2022 at about 11:30 a.m., while police party was on routine patrolling duty, they received a secret information that Safi Mohammad alias Sheru and Pankaj Kumar were indulging in the business of selling narcotic drugs and if their vehicle was searched, huge quantity of narcotic drugs could be recovered. Accordingly, police party associated Gurnam Singh, Pradhan and Jagdish Chand as independent witnesses in the proceedings and went in search of the aforesaid persons and near Shri Krishana Cowshed, they found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP93'6733, in which, two persons were sitting. The person who was sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name as Safi Mohammad alias Sheru and the person sitting next to him, disclosed his name as Pankaj Kumar (petitioner herein). In presence of the independent witnesses, the aforesaid vehicle was searched and during search, one carry bag was recovered from the backside of the co'driver seat and on opening of the same, 100 packets of Lomotil tablets (each packet was containing 60 tablets) were found, which was a sample of Diphenoxylate tablets. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 390 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and consequently, FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, as no recovery was effected from his conscious possession. He further contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than one year and taking into consideration the age of petitioner, i.e. 23 years, if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined. He has further contended that investigation is complete and custody of the petitioner is not at all required and, as such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period.