IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1073 of 2011. Date of decision : 26.12.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Kahan Chand S/o Sh. Shyam R/o Village Pandar, Post Office, Barokadi, Sub Tehsil Nihri, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ..…Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Inder Dutt, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 88/2011 registered on 27.8.2011 at Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘Act’). 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case for allegedly cultivating cannabis plants. 3. The land in question is owned by several persons. The ____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 State Government has launched a scheme to remove cannabis plants so as to curb the production of narcotic substance. The residents of the area are cutting cannabis plants so as to get the benefit of the said scheme. The land in question is joint and petitioner has no role in growing cannabis plants over the said land. 4. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. He is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 27.8.2011 the police party and forest officials reached Saoon (Pandar). In two fields cultivation of cannabis plants was found, Roshan Lal and Bhed Ram local persons were joined as witnesses. There was no employee of revenue department. Roshan Lal disclosed that the fields where cannabis plants were found grown were owned by the petitioner. The plants were about 10,000, photographs were taken on the spot, 30 plants were taken into possession as sample. 10,000 plants were also taken into possession, sealing was done on the spot. 6. The rukka was sent for registration of case against unknown person under Section 20 of the Act. As per report, the plants were found to be cannabis plants. The plants were found grown on Khasra No. 295 according to demarcation report. Out of 80 shares, Kahan Chand is having 41 shares in the land in question. The local witness has identified the land comprising khasra No. 295/1 measuring 0-5-3 bighas over which cannabis plants were cultivated by the petitioner. Prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. There is a copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-08 Mauza Pandar in police file showing khasra No. 295 owned and possessed by several persons namely Nokhu, Palas Ram, Smt. Champa, Mohan Lal, Jhabe Ram, Kahan Chand, Smt. Chetri and Smt. Churi. Khasra No. 295/1 has not been separately identified in the jamabandi. 8. In Dhani Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 816 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 several persons were owners of khasra No. 1704 which was shown in possession of some persons. The case was registered under Section 20 of the Act for cultivation of cannabis plants. The petitioner in that case was not recorded in exclusive possession of khasra No. 1704. This Court granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in that case. 9. The facts in the present case are quite close to Dhani Ram (supra). In the status report nothing has been stated for what purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The apprehension of the respondent that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he will terrorise the prosecution witnesses, is without corroborative material. Thus, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, 10. In view of above, the petition is allowed, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 88/2011 registered on 27.8.2011 at Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi, under Section 20 of the Act, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the 4 Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner or terrorize the prosecution witnesses. 11. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘dasti’. December 26, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.