IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.1024 of 2011. Date of decision : 19.12.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Jeet Ram S/o Sh. Devi Ram R/o Village and Post Office Jagat Khana, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Bail Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in respect of FIR No.183/11 dated 24th August, 2011 registered with the Police Station, Nalagarh, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as amended up to date. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 183 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short ‘Act’). 2. It has been stated in the application that a false case has been registered against the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act.The petitioner is neither __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 connected nor concerned in any manner with respect to the registration of the said case. The petitioner is having three children and wife. 3. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. The poppy husk allegedly recovered from the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, rigor of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable. The petitioner filed bail application which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 15.11.2011. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the State by filing status report. It has been stated that on 24.8.2011 poppy husk weighing 1.100 KG was recovered from the house of the petitioner in presence of petitioner. The sampling and sealing was done on the spot. The petitioner could not produce any permit, licence for possessing poppy husk recovered from his residence. It has been stated that challan has been submitted in the Court on 15.10.2011. 5. The petitioner is already facing trial in case arising out of FIR No. 56 of 2007 dated 2.3.2007 under Section 15 of the Act of Police Station, Nalagarh. The petitioner has been convicted in case arising out of FIR No. 238 of 2006 dated 29.9.2006 under Section 15 of the Act of Police Station, Nalagarh decided by the Sessions Judge, Solan on 17.6.2008. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and fine ` 20,000/-. In case the petitioner is released on bail he is likely to repeat the same offence. The petitioner is in judicial 3 custody since 27.8.2011. Prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has committed no offence. The petitioner will face the consequences if the case is proved against him by the prosecution and till then he is innocent. The other two cases have no bearing on the present case. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that present case is the third case in sequence against petitioner. The petitioner is facing trial in another case and in one case he has been convicted for 2 years under the Act. It appears that the petitioner is habitual offender. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge in case arising out of FIR No. 238 of 2006 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and fine of ` 20,000/- under the Act. The petitioner is facing trial of similar nature in another case. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he will repeat the offence of the same nature again. No case for bail is made out, hence the application is dismissed. 8. The observations made in this judgment 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. December 19, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.