IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.156 of 2010. Decided on: 22nd March, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Sat Parkash Dhingra ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP. ....Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ASI Sarabjit Singh, Police Station, Indora is also present. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reply filed. Heard. The petitioner is owner of a Chemist Shop at Dilkusha Market Extension, Jalandhar. Accused Rajesh, Vipin Kumar and Bishan Singh were allegedly found in possession of 6720 capsules of ‘Spasmo- proxyvon’, 1390 capsules of ‘Parvon Spas’ and 19 bottles of ‘Corex’ (100 ML each), which were being transported by them in vehicle No.HP-54-9200, as such FIR No.53 of 2010 was registered on 28th February, 2010, under Sections 21, 22, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and also under Sections 186, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Indora. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - During the interrogation it came to light that the aforesaid consignment of the above substances was purchased by them from the Chemist Shop of Sat Parkash Dhingra, the present petitioner. It is also the prosecution case that these medicines, which are also mixture of psychotropic substances, are of Schedule ‘H’ drugs, which cannot be sold to the unlicensed persons. However, the limited quantity can be sold against the prescription of the Doctor. There is nothing on record except the fact that the petitioner happens to be owner of the Chemist Shop. The person whose signatures appear on the cash-memo is the son of the petitioner, who is alleged to have sold the above items to the above named persons, from whose possession it was recovered. Therefore, his involvement in the case becomes doubtful. Pursuant to last order, the petitioner supplied the computer hard-disk and relevant stock register. In view of this, the petitioner has a case for pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the interim order passed on 5th March, 2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions and also with a further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation of this case to take it to a logical end. Needless to say that in case the petitioner makes any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the liberty of the bail shall be cancelled. Any expression or observations made heretofore, shall not effect the merits of the case, as it is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition. The petition stands disposed of. March 22, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)