PRADEEP KUMAR 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. 100/2023, dtd. 22/5/2023 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the 'ND&PS Act'). The petitioner is innocent and he was wrongly arrested. He has been in Judicial custody since 22/5/2023. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. The challan has been presented before the Court and charges are yet to be framed. The custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22/5/2023. Secret information was received at 4.00 PM that the petitioner was a tenant in the building owned by Jyoti Devi. He was supplying heroin to the young generation and in case of a search of his room, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing and associated independent witnesses. The police searched the room in the presence of the petitioner and recovered 10 syringes and 22.22 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The substance recovered from the petitioner was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin) after the chemical analysis. FIR No. 223/98, FIR No. 26/2010, FIR No. 300/2010 and FIR No. 32/21 have also been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 300/10, FIR No. 26/10, and FIR No. 223/98, however, FIR No. 228/19, FIR No. 239/12 and FIR No. 32/21 are still pending before the Court. The challan was presented before the Court and is listed for the prosecution evidence on 9/11/2023. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case he is released on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.