IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 674 of 2009. Date of decision: September 16, 2009. Balbinder Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in crime case registered at Chandigarh and the challan has been put up before the Special Judge, Solan. The reply has been filed by respondent No.2. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 19.10.2008 a team of Narcotics Control Bureau laid a nakka on secret information near Toll Barrier, Baddi. The petitioner was travelling in vehicle No. PB-65G-3183 alongwith another accused Ajmer, who is the father of the petitioner. The accused were found in possession of 10 Kgs. opium and a pistol with ten live cartridge. The Narcotics Control Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Bureau team headed by intelligence officer Mr. R.C. Bodh apprehended the accused despite the threat and resistance put by the accused. 3. The Narcotics Control Bureau is an autonomous body created under the statute having its zonal office at Chandigarh, therefore, the crime was registered at Chandigarh but the challan has been put up before learned Special Judge, Solan as the offence was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Solan. 4. The petitioner is likely to abscond and tamper with the evidence in case he is released on bail. The petitioner and co-accused Ajmer were sent to judicial custody by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli after their arrest, but accused Ajmer had absconded from judicial custody while in hospital at Solan and another FIR No. 223 of 2008 to this effect at Police Station, Sadar Solan has been registered. The bail application has been opposed by respondent No. 2. On behalf of respondent No.1, it has been stated that it is the case of respondent No. 2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of false and fabricated story. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The percentage of opium/ morphine is 6.5% in the contraband, and, therefore, actual quantity of offending substance is less than the commercial quantity, as such, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The petitioner had filed bail application, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan on 7.4.2009. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The case against the petitioner is that he and his father Ajmer were travelling in a vehicle and they were checked near Toll Barrier, Baddi and from them 10 Kgs. opium, a pistol and ten live cartridge were …3… recovered. It is also the case of investigating agency that one of the accused Ajmer Singh has absconded when he was sent to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli. The investigating agency has shown its apprehension that petitioner will also abscond in case he is released on bail and he will tamper the evidence. It has not been explained, prima facie, on behalf of the petitioner how 10 Kgs. opium was in the vehicle in which the petitioner and his father were travelling. The father of the petitioner has already absconded from the judicial custody. Therefore, the apprehension of respondent No. 2 that petitioner will also abscond in case he is released on bail is not without any foundation. The challan in the case has already been filed. No change of circumstance after 7.4.2009 for grant of bail to petitioner has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No. 540 of 2009 7. Infructuous. September 16, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.