IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 674 of 2008. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 680 of 2008. Date of Decision: 9-7-2008. _______________________________________________________________ i) Cr.M.P. (M) No. 674 of 2008. Vijay Parkash . Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondent. ii) Cr.M.P. (M) No. 680 of 2008. Surjeet Singh. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Thakur ,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner (s) : M/s Lovneesh Kanwar and Ajay Chandel, Advocates. For the respondent : Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. _______________________________________________________ Surinder Singh Thakur, J. (oral) Petitioners in both these petitions were arrayed as accused on the statements of Bakshi Gulam Ahmed and Hardyal recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. while conducting the further investigation of other accused persons caught red-handed in F.I.R. No. 97 of 2008 registered in Police Station, Kullu under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes. The bail to the petitioners was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kullu. Now, the petitioners have moved the instant applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure for releasing them on bail on the ground that neither they have any nexus with the other accused nor there is any legal evidence to connect them with the alleged crime, as such they are not guilty of the alleged offence. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer, has submitted detailed report of the case in response to the aforesaid applications and opposed the bail on the ground that there is a clear cut evidence of conspiracy against the petitioners. For that, he relied upon the statements of Bakshi Gulam Mohammad and Hardayal. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 19.2.2008, at about 4.15 a.m, the police party headed by Inspector/S.H.O. Partap Singh was present in village Talogi, They had put the nakka and noticed an Alto Car bearing No. HP01M-0312 coming from Jia side. It was stopped. Kashmir Singh Driver of the car had tried to escape but he was over-powered by the Police. With the help of search light, police found accused Suresh Kumar, Manoj Kumar alias Manu and Yadvinder Sharma, sitting in the said vehicle. It was wee hours of the morning and no independent witness was available. On search of the car, Police found a found a bag on the floor of rear seat near the legs of the occupants. The bag contained polythene envelope in which there was some white coloured substance. Police had a narcotic testing kit, on its examination on the spot it was found to be cocaine. Its samples were taken in accordance with law and the accused persons were arrested. On the basis of the ruka, FIR was registered. It was during the investigation of the case, that one of the accused named Suresh Kumar had disclosed that the said contraband was purchased from Nika Ram alias Vijay resident of Sunsai Tehsil Sarkaghat and it was to be sold as per instructions from Hem Raj resident of Rohru at Sundernagar. The owner of the car named Hardayal was questioned at Sarkaghat. He disclosed that present petitioners Vijay Parkash, Surjit Singh and other co-accused Suresh Kumar had assembled in the tea-stall of Bakshi Gulam Mohammad to finalise the deal. Suresh Kumar had hired the car from Hardayal and the petitioners Surjit Singh alias Baddu and Vijay Parkash had conspired to purchase and sell cocaine with Suresh Kumar aforesaid. Thus the present petitioners, on their statement, were arrested. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, suffice it to say, that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act is not attracted in the instant case qua the petitioners herein. There is nothing on record to show that they were earlier involved in the similar case or that they are likely to commit any offence of a similar nature while on bail. The case of the petitioners is different from other accused persons. Thus, in my opinion, in the given circumstances, the petitioners can safely be enlarged on bail on their furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of rupees 50,000/- with one surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Kullu subject to the following conditions :- (i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Police as and when required; (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police officer; (iii) In case, the petitioners intend to visit the place (s) outside the State of Himachal Pradesh in connection with their work, they shall inform the local Police about their whereabouts and addresses, including the time when they would return to their respective places of ordinary residence in writing so long as the matter remains under investigation of the Police. Needless to say that the petitioners shall not flout any of the above conditions, failing which the liberty of bail would be cancelled. Any observations made herein above, are only for the disposal of the present petitions and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Dasti copy on usual terms. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 9, 2008. (bm)