Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Mangla vs State Of H.P on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 101 of 2021
Reserved on: 21.01.2021
.
Date of Decision: 04.02.2021
Gaurav Mangla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1NO
For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Narender Guleria and Mr. Vikas
Rathore, Additional Advocates
General with, Mr. Bhupender
Thakur, Mr. Gaurav Sharma & Ms.
Divya Sood, Deputy Advocates
General.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
348 09.11.2020 Nalagarh, District 22, 29-61-85
Solan, H.P. of NDPS Act.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, who claims to be a chemist, is in
judicial custody for selling prohibited psychotropic substances
without licence and bills to the main accused, from whose
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
possession the police had recovered the same, which led to
arrest of both of them and now has come up before this Court
.
under Section 439 CrPC, for grant of bail for the reasons that he
has not committed illegal act.
2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under
Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court.
However, vide order dated 04.01.2021, Ld. Special Judge,
Nalagarh, dismissed the petition because the quantity of the
contraband recovered from the possession of co-accused
Dharampal is 19 carton boxes of Tramadol capsules total 5700
capsules and 14 cartons boxes of Lommotil 84000 were found,
which were alleged to be supplied by the present petitioner,
clearly indicating that the same was not for self consumption.
Drugs/capsules have become a whole time recreational drug for
new generation. The prime cause of such addiction is its easy
availability of these syrups/capsules. Rather it was meant for
sale to the public.
3. In Para 7 of the bail application declares the
petitioner having no criminal history.
4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that
on 08.11.2020, the police recovered 84000 tablets of Lomotil
and 5700 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride from Dharampal,
which led to registration of FIR mentioned above. During
investigation, he revealed that he has purchased the tablets
.
from the bail petitioner. After arresting the petitioner, police was
able to found bank transactions between the petitioner, his
family and his co-accused, which led to his arrest.
5. Mr. Vijay Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has argued that the petitioner is a chemist and as a routine
work, selling drugs and medicines to the main accused, as
such, he has not committed any offence. He has handed over
photocopy of the petitioner having enrollment No.006781. His
other argument is that wife of the petitioner is expected to
deliver a baby somewhere in February, 2021, as such, he be
given bail.
6. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police
have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and
the co-accused. Another argument on behalf of the State is that
the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding
people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.
7. The argument that the wife of the petitioner is about
to deliver a baby in the month of February, 2021, would not
entitle him for bail for possessing commercial quantity of
psychotropic substances. As far as registration of the petitioner
as pharmacist is concerned, that may not be in dispute. What is
in dispute, whether he sold the medicines under licence and in
.
compliance with the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act or
not, which makes such transactions penal under NDPS Act. The
petitioner has failed to discharge such burden.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has also made several
other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to
grant bail, on the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the
same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the
evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the
accused.
9. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case
for bail. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail
application.
10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the
trial Court advert to these comments.
The petition is dismissed.
Anoop Chitkara,
Vacation Judge.
February 4, 2021
(R.Atal)
