IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 457 of 2010 Decided on: 21.5.2010 Gautam Datkalia ..…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The petitioner has been arrested in case FIR No. 15 of 2010, registered on 31.1.2010, under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Act’). He was denied bail by the Court of Sessions, as such, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the instant application has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 31.1.2010, the police party headed by SI/SHO Chand Mishra was in the area of Jaon-Sarahan bifurcation road. Around 6.30 p.m., Car No. PB-07K-0098 (Alto) came from the side of Bagipull. It was stopped for checking. Gautam Datkalia petitioner was sitting on the driver wheel. His identity was asked. Besides him a bag was found kept on the front seat. The police entertain some suspicion. It was a secluded place. No independent witness was present. The option was given by the said police officer to satisfy the provision of Section 50 of the Act. The occupants of the vehicle agreed to render themselves for search to the police party. On checking the bag, the police recovered 1 Kg. 300 grams charas and also 1 Kg. 400 grams of opium. Samples of each of the items, as per the law, were separated, thereafter sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The sample of seal was also taken separately. Rukka for the registration of a case was sent. 3. The case property was deposited in the malkhanna and samples of each of the aforesaid 3 recovered stuff were sent for the examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory reported resin 28.51% weight in weight and the morphine was found in the another sample to the extent of 2.08% weight in weight. Both these quantities of contraband are less than the “commercial quantity”, as such the rigor of Section 37 is not applicable. There is no criminal history against the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have given the lift in his car to another co-accused Kartar Singh. According to the petitioner the bag belonged to Kartar Singh. 4. The challan has been presented in the Court on 11.5.2010. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing appropriate conditions so that he faces trial of this Case. As such, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, out of which one shall be the local to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrte, Kullu and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner:- (i) shall attend the Court on each and every date of hearing till termination of the trial. 4 (ii) shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case to as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police officer. (iii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 5. Needless to say, in case the petitioner shall flout any of the condition aforesaid, the liberty of the bail shall be cancelled. 6. Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and shall not affect the merits of this case. 7. Let an authenticated copy of this order be immediately sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu for his information and compliance at his end. In case, parties apply for the urgent copy, it be supplied to them as per rules. 8. The application is disposed of. (Surinder Singh), J. May 21, 2010 (vs)