IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.154 of 2008 Decided on: March 12, 2008. Sonu Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr Alok Ranjan with Mr Manoj Pathak, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.113/2006 dated 30.11.2006 registered at Police Station, Ani under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The notice was issued to respondent on 28.2.2008 and status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.11.2006 ASI Rajinder Kumar and other police officials were on patrol duty for traffic checking at place Ropri Nala. At about 6.45 a.m. one person from Shamshar side came and on seeing the police party took a turn. On this, ASI Rajinder Kumar and other police officials apprehended that person and on inquiry he Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… disclosed his name Sonu, resident of Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. The place was lonely, therefore, no local witness was available. The petitioner was searched and from his person 600 grams Charas in sticks and compact form was recovered. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken separately. The samples and the bulk Charas were sealed separately. The petitioner was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against petitioner and now the case has been fixed on 20.3.2008 before Special Judge, Rampur. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that police has managed the affairs in such a way so as to exclude the salutary provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. There is no past history of criminal case(s) against the petitioner. The rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable in view of the fact that only 600 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner. Prayer for releasing the petitioner has been made. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that no doubt there is no history of previous case against the petitioner but the fact is that the petitioner is a resident of Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and was found in possession of 600 grams of Charas in a remote area. It has been submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail it will be very difficult to procure his presence since he is resident of Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. It is also quite possible that the petitioner will indulge in similar type of offence if released on bail. He is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2006. He is already in custody for the last more than 15 …3… months. As per prosecution, 600 grams of Charas was recovered from the person of petitioner which is not a commercial quantity, therefore, rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable. The petitioner is a resident of Haryana is no ground to refuse bail to him if he is otherwise entitled to bail. There is no past criminal history of the petitioner either under the Act or otherwise. The presence of the petitioner can be secured by imposing suitable conditions. It is the prosecution case that the place was lonely, therefore, in absence of any local person, recovery of Charas from the person of petitioner was made in presence of police officials. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that petitioner will influence even police officials who are witnesses in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No.113/2006 dated 30.11.2006 registered at Police Station, Ani under Section 20 of the Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount from the revenue District, District Shimla, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Rampur Bushehar subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner and the petitioner shall not commit in future an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. March 12, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) …4…