SUMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 282 of 2022, dtd. 20/11/2022, under Ss. 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station West, District Shimla, H.P.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20/11/2022, a rukka was received at Police Station Boileauganj that on 19/11/2022, while police party was on routine patrolling duty at place Shoghi Barrier, one HRTC bus, came from Solan side, which was signaled to stop. Thereafter, the police party started checking the bags of the occupants of the bus and when they proceeded to check the bag of the person sitting on seat No. 30(W), he got perplexed and could not give any satisfactory answer with regard to the questions asked by the police party. On suspicion, the police party tried to associate independent witnesses amongst the occupants of the bus, but they refused to become witnesses, as such, the police party asked the Driver and the Conductor of the bus to become witnesses in the proceedings and they agreed to the same. On asking, the Driver of the bus, disclosed his name as Anil Kumar and Conductor of the bus disclosed his name as Sandeep Kumar, in whose presence, name of the person was asked and he disclosed his name as Suman Kumar (petitioner herein), who was carrying a bag with him. When the bag was opened and checked, white coloured plastic packet was recovered. On opening of the said plastic packet, a white coloured substance was found, which on the basis of experience was found to be chitta/heroin. On weighment, the recovered contraband was found to be 127.56 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against accused Suman Kumar and he was arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further contended that investigation in this case is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He also contended that both the co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court, as such, the petitioner, who is in custody since his arrest, is required to be released on bail on the ground of parity.