YASHPAL Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Yashpal, who is in judicial lockup, has approached this Court by way of present petition under Section 439 CrPC, praying herein for grant of regular bail, in connection with Crime No. 57/2016 dated 31.12.2016, under Sections 8, 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Sub Zonal Unit, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to orders dated 3.11.2017 and 24.11.2017, Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate representing Narcotics Control Bureau, has made available complete record pertaining to search and arrest of bail petitioner. Apart from above, Narcotics Control Bureau has also filed its reply to the bail application moved on behalf of the bail petitioner, perusal whereof suggests that on 31.12.2016, hotel namely Yash Palace owned and possessed by bail petitioner was raided/ searched by the officials of Narcotics Control Bureau. At the time of search, one Shri Ram Prakash was present in the Hotel. Narcotics Control Bureau recovered 4.272 kg Charas from one of the rooms of the aforesaid hotel. On the same day i.e. 31.12.2016, at about 9 am, Investigating Officer A.C. Malla and other NCB officials came to the residential house of the bail petitioner and asked him to accompany them to their office at Mandi. They also disclosed to the bail petitioner that Charas had been recovered from his Hotel, Yash Palace. Bail petitioner informed the Investigating Officer that he had rented out said hotel to Ram Prakash on lease with effect from 9.5.2016 and same is valid till 8.4.2017, for a total consideration of Rs.5.00 Lakh and in this regard, he has also executed a lease agreement on 9.5.2016. However, the fact remains that aforesaid explanation rendered on record by the bail petitioner was not accepted by the NCB officials and, he was arrested and a case under Sections 8, 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act came to be registered against the bail petitioner as well as co-accused Ram Prakash and since then they are in judicial lock-up. Bail petitioner at the first instance approached learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, by way of bail application, seeking therein bail but same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, vide order dated 13.10.2017. In the aforesaid background, bail petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition, praying therein for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/status report filed on behalf of Narcotics Control Bureau, strenuously argued that no case is made out against the bail petitioner, who at the time of search and seizure, was not present in the hotel Yash Palace. while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 13.10.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, Kullu, Mr. Chandel, contended that factum with regard to execution of lease deed inter se bail petitioner and other co-accused, Ram Prakash, was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, but despite that bail was not granted. With a view to substantiate that bail petitioner had leased out his hotel in favour of the co-accused Ram Prakash, by way of agreement dated 9.5.2016. Mr. Chandel, also invited attention of this Court to agreement placed on record as Annexure P-1 (available at page-11 of the paper book), perusal whereof suggests that vide agreement dated 9.5.2016, present bail petitioner, who happened to owner-in-possession of the hotel namely Yash Palace, leased out said hotel on rent to Ram Prakash, for a period of eleven months i.e. upto 8.4.2017. While placing heavy reliance upon aforesaid agreement, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner contended that since hotel, from where contraband was allegedly recovered was not with the bail petitioner at the relevant time, there was no occasion for the investigating agency to falsely implicate him in the case. Mr. Chandel, further contended that as the case of the Narcotics Control Bureau itself, bail petitioner was not present in the Hotel and he was called from his residence, whereafter, Charas was allegedly recovered from one of the rooms of the hotel and as such it can not be said that contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner.