Himachal Pradesh High Court
District Jail vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.2296 OF 2021
Between
LUDER SINGH
S/O SHRI DOHRU RAM,
R/O SHARAN, PO RAILA,
TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTRICT KULLU,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN
DISTRICT JAIL, KULLU, H.P.). .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.L. SONI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
ASI PRADEEP KUMAR, I.O. POLICE STATION SAINJ,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. ALSO PRESENT ALONGWITH RECORD)
Decided on : 7.12.2021
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed
the following:
ORDER
By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking bail
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), in case FIR No.60 of 2021, dated 24.7.2021,
registered in Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh, under Sections 20,29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act").
CRMPM No.2296/2021
...2...
2. Status Report stands filed. Record was also
produced for perusal.
3. In the Status Report, the circumstances, in which
.
petitioner Ludar Singh was apprehended alongwith 1.083 kgs of
Charas, have been narrated in detail. On the basis of
revelation of the fact that said Charas was to be handed over to
one Sanjay (co-accused) for a consideration of `75,000/-, who
was in touch with the petitioner, on mobile phone, since 18th
July and 24th July, i.e. the date of apprehension of the petitioner,
alongwith Charas, co-accused Sanjay was arrested. On further
revelation by Sanjay Kumar of the fact that co-accused Mine
Ram was also asking for arranging Charas desperately,
therefore, co-accused Sanjay Kumar contacted the petitioner
for arranging the Charas. For a consideration of `75,000/-, the
petitioner agreed to sell and co-accused Mine Ram had agreed
to purchase 1.5 kgs Charas and Mine Ram had agreed to pay
`5,000/- as commission to Sanjay Kumar for arranging the
Charas, whereupon co-accused Mine Ram was also arrested on
14.8.2021.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 24.7.2021 and after
remaining in police custody, now he is in judicial custody.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even
if the story of the prosecution is taken to be true as it is, then
also quantum of recovered contraband is less than 1 kgs, as it
is specifically mentioned in the Status Report that the weight of
CRMPM No.2296/2021
...3...
recovered contraband, alongwith carry bag and polythene, was
1.083 kg and, thus, it is contended that rigors of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are not applicable in present case. Whereas,
.
learned Additional Advocate General has contended that for the
weight of the recovered contraband, rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act are applicable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, for pressing his
prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail, has relied upon a
judgment of this Court in CRMPM No.1236 of 2021, titled as
Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 27.8.2021,
whereby, petitioner therein, having involved in a case of
recovery of commercial quantity, has been enlarged on bail.
7. In Ram Lal's case, there was recovery of 1.112 kgs
of charas and in that case co-accused had already been
enlarged on bail after 9 months of detention, and petitioner
therein had already suffered detention of one year. Whereas,
in present case, petitioner has been apprehended on 24.7.2021
for possessing more than 1 kg charas and his period of
detention is not comparable with the petitioner in Ram Lal's
case. Moreover, bail application, filed by co-accused Mine Ram
(CRMPM No.2053/2021), has been dismissed by this Court on
1.12.2021. Facts of the case, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, are not similar in all respects.
8. It has been contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General that petitioner has been found involved in
CRMPM No.2296/2021
...4...
commission of an offence which is ruining the society at large
and, therefore, for protection of societal interest also, petitioner
is not entitled for bail. He has also submitted that there is no
.
enmity of police officials with the petitioner so as to cause
implication of the petitioner falsely in the present case.
9. Without going into the merits of the contentions,
with respect to the quantum of recovered contraband and
applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but considering
other material on record and also societal impact of grant or
rejection of bail, at this stage, in the light of facts and
parameters propounded by the Courts, including the Supreme
Court, to be considered at the time of considering bail
application, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, balance of
convenience lies for rejection of the present bail application,
keeping in view the impact on the society and for protection of
societal interest.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present bail
application is dismissed.
Any observation made hereinabove shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case and is confined only for the
purpose of disposal of this bail application.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
December 7, 2021(sd) Judge.
