IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 143 of 2010. Date of decision: 10.3.2010. Ramesh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M.Negi and Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocates General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.62 of 2009 dated 22.6.2009, registered at Police Station, Anni, under Sections 18, 20,29, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) and under Sections 181, 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent has filed status report. 2. Heard and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that allegations against the petitioner are that on 22.6.2009 at about 3 p.m., he alongwith co- accused Satpal and Kuldeep were travelling in vehicle bearing No. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… HR 55-0-914 near Riun at Kullu. On checking of the vehicle about 2.100 Kilograms charas and about 1.5 Kilograms opium were recovered. After completing formalities, all of them were arrested by the police and FIR No. 62 of 2009 came to be registered at Police Station, Anni on 22.6.2009. The petitioner since then is in custody. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated by the police. No charas or opium as alleged was recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 7-8 months. There is none to look after his wife and small children, the petitioner is only the bread earner in the family. The petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions, if he is released on bail. 4. In Chemical Examiner report the quantity of resin found in the sample of charas was 30.40% and on that basis the quantity of charas allegedly recovered comes to 640.83 grams only, similarly the quantity of resin found in the sample of opium was found 1.91% and therefore, the quantity of opium allegedly recovered comes to about 2.86 grams only, which is below the commercial quantity. In these circumstances, the rigour of section 37 of the Act is not applicable. 5. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was dismissed on 25.11.2009. The present bail application has been filed on the change of circumstance that petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.6.2009 and charge is still to be framed against the petitioner. The trial of the case will take some time. There is none to look after the wife and children of the petitioner. The continuous …3… detention of the petitioner is not required inasmuch as the challan has already been submitted in the court. 6. The bail application of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General on the ground that there is no change of circumstance after the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by this court in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 998 of 2009, which was filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail. It has been submitted that now the case is fixed on 18.3.2010 in the trial court for consideration of charge. The learned Deputy Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 998 of 2009 vide which the application of the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by this court. In that case also, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in view of Chemical Examiner report. As per status report, the challan was submitted on 1.10.2009 in the court. The Cr.MP(M) No. 998 of 2009 was dismissed on 25.11.2009 and by that date the challan was already submitted in the court. In the order dated 25.11.2009, it has been observed that filing of challan in the court in itself is no ground when all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners were already considered while rejecting the bail application. 8. The new circumstances pleaded in the application according to the petitioner are that he is in judicial custody since 22.6.2009 and charge has not been framed. The trial will take long …4… time. There is nobody to look after his wife and children. In my opinion, these cannot be termed as new circumstances. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. 9. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. March 10, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.