IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.449 of 2009. Date of decision: 19.6.2009 Lal Singh ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.34 dated 6.3.2009 registered at Police Station, Banjar under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short, the Act). The status report has been filed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.3.2009, SI/SHO along with ASI Dhani Ram, HHC Tek Chand, constable Vijay Kumar and constable Varun Mahant were patrolling in vehicle No.HP-34A-0213 which was being driven by constable Tara Chand, at about 12.15 mid night near Childhar, Chehni Banjar link road, they had seen one person coming from Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Jibhi side on foot. He was stopped by SI and was enquired, who disclosed his name Lal Singh. He could not give satisfactory answers. He was holding a bag on his shoulder. On suspicion he was searched and from the bag opium weighing 1 Kg. 500 grams was recovered. The sampling and sealing was done on the spot. The contraband was taken into possession. A ruka was sent for registration of case under Section 18 of the Act. The report from FSL Junga was obtained. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court on 28.5.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution case against the petitioner is based on alleged recovery of I Kg. 500 grams opium from the petitioner. It has been submitted that commercial quantity under the Act for opium is 2 Kg. 500 grams. Therefore, rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable. It has been submitted that investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is in custody since 6.3.2009. The petitioner is permanent resident of village Halocha, Tehsil Anni. The petitioner earlier had filed bail application which was wrongly dismissed by learned Special Judge, Kullu on 13.4.2009. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and even if rigour of Section 37 is not applicable still keeping in view of the quantity of opium recovered from the petitioner he be not released on bail. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 13.4.2009 by learned Special Judge, Kullu. The petitioner filed another bail application in this court which was withdrawn on 11.5.2009. There is no change of circumstance. 3 5. Heard and perused the record. It has not been disputed by the State that the commercial quantity for opium is 2 Kg. 500 grams and 1 Kg. 500 grams opium was recovered from the petitioner. Therefore rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in the present case. The challan was presented in the Court on 28.5.2009. The Chemical Examiner report is dated 30.4.2009. On 13.4.2009 when the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by Special Judge, Kullu the case was under investigation but now investigation in the case is complete. In the status report, it has been vaguely stated that in case petitioner is released on bail then he can influence the witnesses. The apprehension of the prosecution has not been supported by other corroborative material on record. In any case in that situation the law will take its own course. The petitioner has made out a case for allowing the application. Accordingly, application is allowed. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.34 dated 6.3.2009 registered at Police Station, Banjar under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Kullu with the conditions that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and not influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 19, 2009 (sks) 4