Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dharampal vs State Of H.P on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 42 of 2021
Date of Decision: 8th Jan, 2021.
.
____________________________________________________________________
Dharampal ...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. Amar Deep Singh, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate
r General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law
Officer.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
348 09.11.2020 Nalagarh, District Solan 22, 29 of
Narcotic Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
The petitioner, who is a habitual offender, has come up
before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail for
concealing commercial quantity of psychotropic substances in the
field, allegedly in his possession.
2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section
439 CrPC for bail before the this Court, but the same was withdrawn
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
3. The petitioner has criminal history as one FIR was
.
registered against him in police station, Nalagarh on 24.04.2020 and
in another case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, he was
convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp
at Nalagarh, District Solan .
4. Mr. Amar Deep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the land in question from where the alleged contraband
was allegedly recovered, does not belong to the petitioner. He has
drawn attention of this Court to the affidavits filed by some of the
villagers to substantiate that the petitioner was falsely roped in.
5. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate
General, has argued that the quantity is commercial and burden is
on the accused to come out of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, which he failed to do so.
6. The decision of this Court in Satinder Kumar v. State of
H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 391 of 2020, decided on 4th Aug 2020, covers the
proposition of law involved in this case, wherein this Court has held
that satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the
infertile eggs. The ratio of the decision is that to get the bail in
commercial quantity of substance, the accused must meet the twin
conditions of S. 37 of NDPS Act.
7. The quantity involved in this case is 84000 tablets of
Lomotll and 5700 capsule of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is a
huge commercial quantity. Although, while reading status report,
this Court noticed that Investigating Officer has associated only one
.
non-police witness, that is, Pradhan, Shri Subhash Chand, and non-
association of two independent witnesses prejudiced the accused, but
the same is a subject matter of trial. The fact that petitioner was
initially convicted in a case under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, however,
appeal against the said conviction is still pending. Status report
further reveals that another case FIR No. 145 dated 24.04.2020,
under Sections 188, 269, 270 of Indian Penal Code and Section
39(1)(a) of HP Excise Act, Police Station Nalagarh, is also registered
against the petitioner, which shows that he is a habitual offender,
dealing with psychotropic substances. A perusal of the entire petition
and criminal history does not entitle the petitioner for bail at this
stage.
8. Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition as and when he so
thinks fit.
The petition is dismissed.
(Anoop Chitkara)
Judge.
January 8, 2021
(R.Atal)
