PAWAN DIXIT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC has been preferred by the bail petitioner namely Pawan Dixit, who is in custody since 12.9.2017, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 176/17 dated 1.8.2017, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 26.12.2017, HC Jai Singh has come present with the record. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency, perusal whereof suggests that FIR mentioned above, came to be registered at the behest of HC Jai Singh, who alleged that on 11.8.2017, police patrolling party saw a person namely Harsh Kumar, coming from Akhara side on foot. Since above named person became perplexed after seeing the police, he was stopped but he made an attempt to run away from the place and in this process, he threw one packet. Above named person was subsequently apprehended by the patrolling party near the place of alleged occurrence. On search of the packet allegedly dropped by the person namely Harsh, same was found to be "Heroin", which subsequently, on weighment came to be 9.20 grams. Above named person later on disclosed to the police that he is a drug addict and had purchased "Heroin" as recovered from his custody by the police, from one person at Delhi. He also disclosed that the bail petitioner (Pawan Dixit) accompanied him to that person at Delhi. On the aforesaid disclosure made by Harsh, a case came to be registered against the bail petitioner under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. On 12.9.2017, i.e. after one month of registration of FIR, present bail petitioner came to be arrested and since then he is in custody.

(3.) Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/ status report strenuously argued that no case, if any, is made out under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act ibid against the bail petitioner, as such, he deserves to be released on bail. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that as per own story of the investigating agency, "Heroin" weighing 9.20 grams was recovered from co-accused Harsh, who has already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that though there is nothing on record to prove involvement of the present bail petitioner in the crime allegedly committed by him as well as other co-accused, but even if the quantity of contraband, which is less than 'commercial' quantity, allegedly recovered from the co-accused Harsh is taken into consideration, present bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, contended that as per investigation carried out by the investigating agency till date, it has nowhere come that contraband, if any, was ever recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather, role imputed/ascribed to him is that he accompanied co-accused Harsh to the person at Delhi, who later on gave "Heroin" to Harsh. While making prayer for enlargement of bail to the bail petitioner, Mr. Chauhan, contended that the bail petitioner is a local resident and shall always remain available for trial/investigation and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. Mr. Chauhan, contended that bail can not be denied to the bail petitioner on the ground that some FIR's were lodged against him in the past, because present case is required to be decided on the basis of investigation carried out in the present case.