Sunil [email protected] Sonu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 990 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.201 of 2021 Reserved on: 29.01.2021

.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2021

Sunil [email protected] Sonu ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General & Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General, with

Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Narender Singh Thakur & Mr. Kamal Kant, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General.

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

FIR Dated Police Station Sections

No.

        90      17.05.2020        Ghumarwin, District 21 & 29                          of
                                  Bilaspur, H.P.      NDPS Act.

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, who is in Judicial Custody since

17th May, 2020, in FIR No.90 of 2020, dated 17.05.2020, Police

Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, under

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

Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, for keeping around 100.14 Grams of

.

Heroin in his car, has come up before this Court, under Section

439 CrPC, for grant of bail.

2. Prior to this, the petitioner had also filed an

application, under Section 439 CrPC for grant of bail before the

learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.

However, vide order dated 13.08.2020, the learned Special

Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., had dismissed the

said application. A perusal of order of rejection of learned

Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. reveals that

fourteen criminal cases were registered against the petitioner,

out of which two cases pending against him have been

registered under the NDPS Act.

3. The quantity involved in the present case is 100.14

Grams and the petitioner appears to be a habitual offender, as

such, at this stage, he is not entitled to any bail.

4. 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, if so advised.

5. 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
        (Bhardwaj)




                        r      to