IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 772 of 2011 Date of decision : 12.10.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Kewal Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 11 dated 20.1.2011 registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, under Sections 20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘Act’). 2. It has been stated in the application that FIR No. 11 has been registered on 20.1.2011 at Police Station Parwanoo and four persons namely Naresh Kumar, Joginder Singh, Sunil Kumar and Sonu were found in possession of Charas weighing 6 kg.200 grams while travelling in Maruti Car No. DL-3CM-7361 when it was intercepted. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. The petitioner has been arrested on 18.3.2011 on the statement of accused that Charas was purchased by them from petitioner. The investigating agency has wrongly relied on the call details between petitioner and other accused. Some girls from the village of the petitioner are married in the relation of the accused, the petitioner and accused are known to each other, therefore, telephonic conversation between petitioner and other accused is no ground to implicate the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested after three months. There is no legal evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence. The petitioner is innocent. He is sole bread winner of the family. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 22.7.2011. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report in which it has been stated that Naresh Kumar, Joginder Singh, Sunil Kumar and Sonu were arrested on 21.1.2011 after recovery of Charas weighing 6 kg. 200 grams. The other accused during police remand disclosed that they had purchased the contraband from the petitioner. It has been stated that all the accused are in judicial custody. The petitioner is involved in serious offence and, therefore, prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the record. The case of the investigating agency is that Naresh Kumar, Joginder Singh, Sunil Kumar and Sonu were arrested on 21.1.2011 and Charas weighing 6 kg 200 grams was recovered from them. They disclosed during 3 interrogation that they had purchased Charas from the petitioner and petitioner has been arrested on 18.3.2011. The role of the petitioner prima-facie is not less serious than the role of the other accused. The allegations against the petitioner is that he deals in Charas and sells Charas in bulk to his customers. The allegations are serious, the contraband involved in the case is 6 kg. 200 grams, which is quite huge quantity. 6. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that challan has been submitted in the Court on 26.3.2011 and now the case has been fixed on 29.10.2011 for consideration of charge. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 22.7.2011. There is no change of circumstance after 22.7.2011. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 12, 2011 . ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.