IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.319 of 2008 Decided on: May 09, 2008. Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Manoj Pathak, Advocate. 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.20 dated 23.2.2007, registered at Police Station, Anni under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that police concocted a false story that 1Kg and 400 grams of Charas was recovered from the person of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… implicated and he is innocent. It has been submitted that as per the report of chemical examiner, percentage of resin in the sample was found to be 37.48%. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Dharam Pal versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 827, and in Cr.M.P.(M) No.589 of 2007 titled Manjeet Kaur versus State of H.P. for releasing the petitioner on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of resin content in the contraband as per the report of the chemical examiner, the quantity of charas comes to less than commercial quantity as per ratio of Dharam Pal’s case (supra), therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. He has submitted that rigour of Section 37 of the Act is not applicable as the quantity of Charas comes to less than commercial quantity as per Dharam Pal’s case (supra). 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that 1 Kg 400 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner. In Manjeet Kaur’s case (supra), the alleged recovery was made from a woman and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of that case the petition was allowed and Dharam Pal’s case (supra) was decided on merits. He has submitted that at the stage of bail the quantity …3… recovered from the petitioner is to be taken into consideration. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. As per prosecution, 1 Kg 400 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner. According to the report of chemical examiner ‘the sample under reference is of Charas’. In Dharam Pal’s case (supra), as per report of the chemical examiner, the stuff was reported to contain ‘contents of Charas’ and not ‘Charas’. In the present case, the report of the chemical examiner is very clear that sample under reference is of Charas. No doubt, in the report of the chemical examiner, it has been further reported that sample P/1 contains resin 37.48% WW. The chemical examiner in the present case has not reported that sample contains contents of Charas. What is the significance of resin 37.48% WW in the report of the chemical examiner is to be seen during trial. The facts in the present case are not the same as were in the case of Dhram Pal (supra). At this stage, there is nothing on record to show that quantity of Charas recovered from the petitioner was less than 1 Kg 400 grams. This being the position, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act is applicable and the petitioner is not entitled to …4… bail. No case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 09, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)