LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-169

ANKIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On September 11, 2019
Ankit Kumar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Ankit Kumar, who is behind the bars since 27.4.2019, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.110/2019, dated 27.4.2019, registered at police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ( For short 'Act').

(2.) Close scrutiny of the record/ status report reveals that on 27.4.2019, police party stopped motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-?12K-?7928 being driven by the present bail petitioner for checking. Since, bail petitioner got perplexed, police party asked him to gave search of his rucksack. Allegedly, police party in the presence of independent witness namely, Lakhvinder Singh recovered 117 strip of prohibited drugs namely, Tramadol (1170 pills) and 12 strips of Lomotil (total 720 pills). Since, bail petitioner, who otherwise is a Chemist, failed to produce permit/ licence qua the above named drugs allegedly recovered from him. Police after completion of the necessary codal formalities, registered a case under Sections 21-?61-?85 of the Act, against the bail petitioner and thereafter took him into custody on 27.4.2019 and since then he is behind the bars. Respondent-?State has also made available report of FSL Junga, relevant portion, whereof is reproduced as under:-? "Results of the examination.

(3.) Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of police Official, who is present in Court, fairly states that challan in the case stands filed in the competent Court of law. He states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but till date he has not disclosed the source from where he allegedly purchased the prohibited drugs recovered from his rucksack. While opposing the prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail, learned Additional Advocate General strenuously argued that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely.