IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.909 of 2008 Decided on: Sept. 26, 2008. Ram Mehar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.15 dated 8.2.2007 registered at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case against the petitioner, in brief, is that on 8.2.2007 at about 7 a.m. petitioner was carrying a bag and intercepted at Tuman Mor and 3.100 Kgs Charas was recovered from him. The petitioner was arrested, the recovered contraband Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… was taken into possession. As per report of chemical examiner, sample under reference is of Charas. The resin content in the contraband was found 29.43% WW. Exhibit marked as P/1 is a sample of Charas. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner earlier filed bail application No.138 of 207 which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur on 11.12.2007. The petitioner also filed Cr.M.P.(M) No.28 of 2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn. He has submitted that as per chemical examiner the resin content in the sample is 29.43% WW, therefore, actual quantity of Charas in the recovered stuff comes to more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity. This being the position, rigour of Section 37 of the Act for releasing the petitioner on bail is not applicable. In support of his submissions he has also submitted that this Court in Cr.M.P(M) Nos.611, 630 and 756 of 2008 has released the petitioners of those cases on bail after considering the report of the chemical examiner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation in the case is complete and the trial of the case may take some time. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that huge quantity 3 Kgs 100 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner. The impact of report of chemical examiner will be considered …3… during trial. The petitioner is resident of Haryana State. In case he is released on bail, he may jump the bail and the petitioner can also influence the prosecution witnesses and may again indulge in illegal trade of Charas. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied by the learned Additional Advocate General that as per chemical examiner report the resin content in the sample was found to be 29.43% WW. This being the position, then actual Charas contents in the recovered stuff comes to more than small quantity and less then commercial quantity. In these circumstances, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable. The petitioner is resident of Haryana is no ground for releasing him on bail. There is nothing on record, except bald allegations that in case the petitioner is released on bail he can influence the prosecution witnesses and again indulge in illegal trade of Charas. In case the petitioner will indulge in some illegal activities then law will take its own course. At the time of hearing of the bail application it is not the case of the State that earlier to the present case the petitioner was indulging in illegal trade of Charas. In Moti Ram and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1594 and Sanjay alias Bablu alias Keja versus State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 403, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that refusal to grant of bail merely on the …4… ground that the appellant hailing from another State is not justified. The present case is covered by decision dated 7.7.2008 in Cr.M.P(M) Nos.611 and 630 of 2008 and decision dated 4.8.2008 in Cr.M.P(M) No.756 of 2008. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R.No.15 dated 8.2.2007 registered at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu under Section 20 of the Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division and at least one surety shall be from District Shimla with the further condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. Sept. 26, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)