SUHAIL KHAN 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 F.I.R. No. 220/2022, dtd. 27/10/2022, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Ss. 21 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 27. 10.2022, the police party was on patrolling duty at place Dohri Deewar. Around 3:40 p.m., S.I. Gian Chand received a secret information that a vehicle (Wagon R) bearing registration No. HP 10B 2659 is coming from Dharampur side via Solan towards Shimla, in which there are three occupants, namely Amit Gupta, Ashish Gupta and Suhail Khan (petitioner herein), who are involved in selling of chitta/heroin and if the said vehicle is checked, huge quantity of chitta/heroin could be recovered. On the basis of aforesaid information, police laid a Nakka. The police associated one Ashok Kumar as an independent witness in the proceedings. Around 4:35 p.m., the said vehicle came from Rabaun side and was signaled to stop, in which, there were three occupants, who disclosed their names as Amit Gupta, Ashish Gupta and Suhail Khan (petitioner herein). In presence of independent witness, the said vehicle was searched and when dash board of the vehicle was opened, one transparent plastic pouch, containing light white coloured powder and solid substance, was found. When the said substance was checked with the help of DD Kit, the contraband was found to be chitta/heroin, which on weighment was found to be 6.70 gms. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and arrested the accused persons. Consequently, FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered against the accused persons.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in judicial custody since his arrest. He has further contended that taking into consideration the age of petitioner, i.e. 22 years, if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined. He has also contended that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and as such, his custody is not at all required.