RAMKALI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

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. 36/2022, dtd. 12/3/2022, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Ss. 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act").

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12. 03.2022 a rukka was received at Police Station Dhalli that today (12/3/2022) at about 11:40 a.m., while police party was on routine patrolling duty at Panthaghati Chowk, they received a secret information that two Nepali residents namely Prem Prakash and Sunita, who were coming from SJVNL Colony via Dhobighat road, were indulging in the business of selling charas/cannabis and if their search was conducted, huge quantity of charas/cannabis could be recovered. Accordingly, police party went in search of the aforesaid persons and at about 12:30 p.m., when they reached Bakhrai, they saw that two Nepali residents, one man and one woman, were coming from the Dhobighat Malyana road and the woman was carrying a bag with her. The police party associated Kuldeep Thakur and Bhupinder Thakur as independent witnesses in the proceedings. On asking, the man disclosed his name as Prem Parkash (petitioner herein) and woman disclosed her name as Sunita Rana. In presence of the independent witnesses, bag carried by Sunita Rana was opened and checked, which was found containing black coloured substance in round shape in a transparent polythene packet, which on the basis of experience was found to be charas/cannabis. On weighment, the same was found to be 1 kg 310 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 this case, as no recovery was effected from him. He further contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than eleven months and taking into consideration the age of petitioner, i.e. 28 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.