1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.739 of 2008. Date of decision: 25.7.2008. Ashok Kumar ………. 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. Jagdish Vats and Mr. Raj Negi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 54 registered on 8.5.2008 at Police Station, Parwanoo under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short Act) . The respondent has filed status report. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.5.2008, 4 kg 200 grams charas was recovered from Ramesh Chand and Ashok Kumar who were traveling in Trax No. HP-02-0289. They were arrested on 9.5.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan on 24.5.2008. He has submitted that as per chemical examiner the resin content in the sample was found to be 12.90% w/w, therefore, even as per prosecution case the charas contents in the recovered stuff is less then commercial quantity. He has submitted that bar of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in the present case. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in terms of the directions of this Court. The investigation in the case is complete. The trial of the case will take some time and therefore submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner for releasing him on bail. The bail application has been opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General. He has not denied that the quantity of resin as per the chemical examiner report is 12.90% w/w in the sample but he has submitted that the chemical examiner has opined that the entire mass is sample of charas. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on order dated 7.7.2008 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 611 and 630 of 2008. In the order dated 7.7.2008 this Court has relied Daulat Ram vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 827 and other cases. In Cr.MP(M) No.611 of 2008 the weight of the contraband was 1.600 Kgs. and the resin content in the sample of charas was 22.30% w/w and in Cr.MP(M) No.630 of 2008 the weight of contraband was 2.700 Kgs. and the resin content in the sample of charas was 27.79% w/w and 27.62% w/w. In the present case, the contraband recovered is 4kg 200 grams but the resin content as 3 per chemical examiner in the contraband is 12.90% w/w. Hence, quantity of charas in the sample on the basis of percentage of resin contents comes to more then small quantity and less then the commercial quantity. Nothing has been placed on record regarding the past conduct of the petitioner nor there is any allegation that petitioner is likely to commit similar type of offence in future. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has made out a case for releasing him on bail. Accordingly application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 54 registered on 8.5.2008 at Police Station, Parwanoo under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan with the conditions that petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and petitioner shall appear before SHO, Parwanoo at least once in a month during the pendency trial arising out of FIR No.54 dated 8.5.2008, Police Station, Parwanoo and SHO shall record the presence of petitioner. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge July 25, 2007(sks)