Pyare Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2131 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


                                              Cr.MP(M) No.2288 of 2020




                                                                            .
                                              Decided on: 16.03.2021





    Pyare Lal                                                  .... Petitioner.
                       Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                 .... Respondent.
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No





    For the petitioner  :   Mr. Gobind Korla, Advocate.

    For the respondent:              Mr. Sumesh Raj, Mr. Dinesh Thakur,
                                     Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates
                       r             General, with Ms. Divya Sood, Mr. K.K.

                                     Chaudhary, Deputy Advocates General.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has prayed for his enlargement on

bail, in FIR No.253 of 2017, dated 29.10.2017, registered under

Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985, at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold the

'Charas', weighing 3kg 45 grams to the main accused and accordingly,

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

he has been charged under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs &

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

investigation which has been carried out by the Investigating Agency

nowhere connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence and

as the petitioner has been charged under Section 29 of the Narcotic

Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and in the absence of there

being any cogent material with the Investigating Agency to connect him

with the commission of the crime, no purpose is going to be achieved

by keeping him in custody. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for

releasing the petitioner on bail.

4. The petition stands opposed by the State, inter alia, on the

ground that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner is grave in

nature and there is each and every possibility that in the event of the

petitioner being released on bail, he may tinker with the evidence and

may create hindrance in the course of trial. Learned Deputy Advocate

General further refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency

does not connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence and

she has submitted that as per the investigation, there is a strong linkage

between the petitioner and the accused, demonstrating that the petitioner

is guilty of the offence for which he has been charged.

.

5. Be that as it may, this Court refrains from making any

observation on the merit of the case, but suffice it to say that the

allegation against the petitioner is with regard to the sale of 3 kg 45

grams of 'Charas' to the main accused, which quantity undisputedly is a

commercial quantity and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

able to point out as to why the petitioner stood named by the principal

accused as to from whom the cannabis (Charas) were purchased.

6. Accordingly, as the Court does not finds any merit in the

present petition and the same is dismissed, because the Court concurs

with the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General that

the petitioner being a local person can influence the witnesses and also

recourse the trial, if released on bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 16, 2021 (Rishi)