SOBHARAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 29.5.2019, ASI Kulmesh Singh has come present with the record. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared by the investigating agency on the basis of investigation carried out by it. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 29.5.2019, the bail petitioner has joined the investigation and is fully cooperating. Mr. Sood, learned Additional Advocate General further states that at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, his custodial interrogation is not required and he can be ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available for investigation as well as trial, as and when called by the investigating agency. Mr. Sood, fairly admits that the coaccused Rati Ram has been already released on anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide judgment dated 11.6.2018 passed in CrMP(M) No. 697 of 2018.

(3.) Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that FIR No. 51, dated 1.5.2018 under S.18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner at Police Station Padhar, Mandi, on the basis of a secret information received by the Police to the effect that the bail petitioner is involved in illegal cultivation of prohibited substance i.e. Opium. Allegedly, the Police recovered 2000 plants of Opium illegally cultivated by the bail petitioner in his fields. As per record, Police, after having drawn samples, destroyed the illegal cultivation of Poppy plants, however, report of the FSL clearly suggests that the plants allegedly confiscated by the investigating agency are samples of Poppy plants and fall within the definition of prohibited substance as defined under the Act ibid.