Shivam Monga vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 972 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 194 of 2021 Reserved on: Feb 1st 2021.

.

                                 Date of Decision:      Feb 4th 2021.





    Shivam Monga                                                         ...Petitioner.





                                 Versus

    State of H.P.                                                       ...Respondent.





    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Addl.

Advocate General and Ms. Swaneel Jaswal,

Dy. A.G.

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE






        FIR No. Dated          Police Station    Sections
        52    of 25.7.2020     Swarghat District 20, 25 and 29 of the ND&PS
        2020                   Bilaspur, H.P.    Act.





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

On 25.7.2020, the police officials were on patrolling duty, caught a Car, parked in side the road. On seeing the police officials, two persons, who were sitting on the backside of the Car run away. However, the persons in the front seat could not run because they were nabbed by the police, which raises suspicion and the police party recovered 1.642 kgs of charas. The persons, who were nabbed from the Car revealed their names as Shivam Monga the present petitioner and Ankit Sharma. During interrogation, they revealed the names of the persons, who have run away as Rakesh

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Kumar and Akshay Kumar. Since 180 days have already been passed from the date of arrest as such, the police challan under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is stated to have been filed.

.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not draw the attention to any

documents of the challan to satisfy the condition of Section 24 of the NDPS Act.

3. Since the quantity involved in the present case is commercial, as such, the

burden is on the petitioner to make out a case for bail, by satisfying the condition of Section 77 of the ND&PS Act, which he has failed to do so.

The bail petition is dismissed.

Anoop Chitkara,

Vacation Judge.

Feb 4, 2021 (kck).