PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Pankaj Kumar, who is behind the bars since 30/1/2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S. 439 CrPC, for grant of bail in FIR No. 31, dtd. 30/1/2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under S.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(2.) Respondent-State has filed status report and investigating officer has come present with record. Perusal of status report as well as record reveals that on 30/1/2023, police party present at Naka laid near Bhuili Chowk Mandi, stopped Jeep No. HP-74A-3102 for checking, but since driver of the vehicle fled from the spot, message was given at Police Station and ultimately said vehicle was apprehended near petrol pump. Since occupants of the vehicle were perplexed after seeing the police, police deemed it necessary to cause their search and search of vehicle. Allegedly in the presence of independent witnesses, police recovered 144 grams of charas from the bag kept under blanket laid on the seat of the vehicle. Since occupants of the vehicle were unable to render any explanation for/ qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after completion of codal formalities, lodged FIR and since then the bail petitioner is behind the bars but co-acsued namely Amit and Sunil stand enlarged on bail. Though petitioner herein had also applied for bail alongwith two co-accused but his prayer was rejected on the ground that one criminal case is pending against him. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court for grant of bail.

(3.) While fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. While fairly admitting factum with regard to grant of bail to other co- accused, learned Additional Advocate General states that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner alongwith other two accused had been indulging in the illegal trade of narcotics as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in such activities again.