IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 720 of 2011. Date of decision : 26.9.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Bahadur Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant 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. 13 of 2011 dated 02.02.2011, registered at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu, under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short ‘Act’) The status report has been filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated that as per the prosecution case on 2.2.2011 at about 5.45 a.m. when SHO, Police Station, Ani was on patrol duty at place Shamshar Gugra near Baliol alongwith other police officials, a car No. HP-69-1295 came from Gugra side. It was stopped and the driver Bhupinder Singh was asked to produce the documents of the car, who could not produce the documents. On the rear seat of __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 the car Gaurav Singh and Vikas Sharma were sitting. The persons sitting in the car did not give satisfactory answers . On this, car was searched and from the car a bag was recovered containing 4 kg 500 grams charas. The sampling and sealing was done on the spot and the occupants of the car were arrested on 2.2.2011. 3. It has been alleged that Bhupinder Singh after about three months disclosed that they had purchased the recovered charas from petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 2.5.2011 under Section 29 of the Act. As per prosecution, the petitioner himself with the help of Gorkhas had extracted charas. The other accused stayed in the house of the petitioner on 31.1.2011 and 1.2.2011. The chemical analysis of the contraband has given resin content 34.77 ww and sample was opined to be the extract of cannabis and sample of charas. The petitioner is in custody since 2.5.2011. 4. It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The mobile phone in question is owned by the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of alleged statement made by Bhupinder Singh that charas was purchased from petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner is resident of District Kullu. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the petitioner is the person from whom the other accused purchased huge quantity of charas and charas weighing 4 kg 500 3 grams was recovered from the other accused at the time of search of the car. It has been submitted that the petitioner has committed serious offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. 6. I have heard both the sides. The bail application of petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr on 21.7.2011. The allegations against the petitioner are that he himself extracted charas and deals in bulk sale of contraband. The sold charas to other three accused was recovered from them. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that after registration of the case the petitioner had gone underground. The investigating agency has shown apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail he will repeat the same offence again. The trial has already begun and is fixed for evidence on 26.9.2011 to 28.9.2011. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, resultantly the petition fails and is dismissed. 7. 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. September 26, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.