IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 849 of 2008. Date of decision: September 12, 2008. Dula Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral): This is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 365 dated 30.10.2007 registered at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.10.2007 Inspector/ SHO Narvir Singh Rathore alongwith other policemen was patrolling at about 8.15 p.m. on Bhungarni Nihalgarh road. A secret and reliable information was received that petitioner Dula Ram after purchasing poppy husk had kept the same in the house of Angrejo Devi and both of them deal in sale and purchase of poppy husk. The secret information was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… genuine, therefore, compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act was made and information was sent to Sub Divisional Police Officer through constable Dhanbir Singh, who returned with the authorisation at about 9.15 p.m. A raiding party was constituted, which went to the house of Angrejo Devi. Dula Ram and Angrejo Devi were found on the spot. They were told about the search and their consent for search of the house in presence of the witnesses was taken and the house was searched. During search, in a room in front of the kitchen a heap of sacks was noticed, each sack was checked in presence of the witnesses. On checking, poppy husk was found in 16 sacks, which were weighed at the flour mill of Harpal Singh. On weighment, 11 sacks were having 26 Kgs., 4 sacks 27 Kgs. and one sack 20 Kgs., in total 414 Kgs. poppy husk. From each sack two samples of poppy husk were taken and sealed. The balance bulk poppy husk was also sealed with seal impression `T’, sample seal was taken on a separate cloth. NCB forms were filled in, 32 samples of poppy husk, sacks were taken into possession. It was found that petitioner and Angrejo Devi have committed an offence under Section 15 of the Act, therefore, a rukka was sent to the police station for registration of case. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner and Angrejo Devi were arrested on 31.10.2007. Samples were sent for chemical examination and as per Chemical Examiner Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/16 are the samples of poppy husk. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court and now the next date of hearing is fixed on 15, 16.9.2008 for prosecution evidence. …3… 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that poppy husk was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The house from where the poppy husk was allegedly recovered does not belong to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court, if released on bail. It has been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2007 and it is not clear how much time trial will take. No purpose of prosecution will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that petitioner and Angrejo Devi had been jointly operating in illegal trade of selling and purchasing poppy husk, huge quantity of 414 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered by the raiding party. The petitioner and Angrejo Devi were very much present on the spot when the recovery was made. It has been submitted that Angrejo Devi had earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 559 of 2008, which was dismissed by this court on 17.6.2008. The learned Additional Advocate General has thus submitted for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the house from where the poppy husk was recovered does not belong to the petitioner. The alleged poppy husk was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He has cited some judgments in supports of his submission that when …4… recovery was not made from the conscious possession of the petitioner then accused is entitled to bail. The conscious possession of the petitioner over the contraband recovered by the raiding party will be seen during the trial. Therefore, I am not referring judgements cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has come on record that at the time of conducting raid, the petitioner and Angrejo Devi both were very much present on the spot and when the contraband was recovered. The allegation of the prosecution is that petitioner and Angrejo Devi had been dealing in the sale and purchase of poppy husk. It has not been explained by the petitioner how he was present on the spot at the time of raid and when recovery of poppy husk was effected. Therefore, keeping in view the huge quantity of poppy husk recovered, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 12, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.