IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 816 of 2011. Date of decision: 14.10.2011. Dhani Ram ….. 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. Inder Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.329 of 2011 dated 1.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Anni, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, registered on 1.10.2011 at Police Station, Anni, under Section 20 of the Act, for cultivating cannabis (Bhang) plants in his field. It has been stated that State Government has launched a scheme to remove the cannabis plants in and around Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… the area so as to curb the production of narcotic substances. The residents of the area are cutting the cannabis plants so as to get the benefits of the said scheme. However, no cannabis plant was standing in or around the land possessed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has nothing to do with the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. However, in view of registration of case, the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the above FIR. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 4. The status report has been filed in which it has been stated that police party was patrolling and crossing through the village Juhar. Bahadur Singh, Smt. Babita Devi and Vikram Singh also joined the police party. They found that one person was cutting cannabis plants from his field, who on seeing the police party ran away. The Patwari Halqua as per revenue record identified the field bearing khasra No. 1704 measuring 0.5 biswas owned by the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Police Officer was informed on mobile phone, five cannabis plants from the field were taken into possession and the remaining plants of cannabis were destroyed. The petitioner has thus committed offence, under Section 20 of the Act. It has been stated that report from the Chemical Examiner has not yet been received. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 5. Heard and perused the record. In the police file, khasra No. 1704 is owned by several persons as per copy of jamabandi for …3… the year 2004-05, Mohal Karsaigard. This land is shown in possession of Kewal Ram, Dhani Ram and Shiv Dassi. It has not been stated in the status report that the person who was allegedly cutting the cannabis plants from khasra No. 1704 was actually identified to be petitioner by anyone from the raiding party. The status report has proceeded further that Patwari Halqua identified the land comprised in khasra No. 1704 measuring 0.5 biswas from where the said person was cutting cannabis plants when police party reached there and on seeing the police party, he ran away. In the copy of jamabandi, in addition to petitioner, some other persons are also shown in possession of land, comprised in khasra No. 1704. At the time of consideration of bail application, it is not necessary to further elaborate on the material till now collected by the investigating agency. At this stage, it is sufficient to observe that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, under section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Thus the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No.329 of 2011 dated 1.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Anni, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer with the condition that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. …4… 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case Copy dasti. October 14, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.