IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 512 of 2009. Date of decision: June 30, 2009. Virender Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to petitioner in FIR No. 3 dated 12.1.2009 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). The status report has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.1.2009, SI/SHO and other officials were on patrol duty in official vehicle No. HP-34-0085, which was being driven by constable Tikam Singh, at about 1.30 p.m. near Dharar Nalla a person came from jungle side, who was having one black bag on his shoulder. On seeing the police party, he became nervous. He was overpowered by the police party. The place was secluded and without habitation. On inquiry, the man Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… disclosed his name as Virender Singh, aged 27 years. The bag which the petitioner was carrying, was searched after following due procedure and contraband weighing 3.5 kilograms was recovered. The samples and balance quantity of contraband were sealed. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, a rukka was sent for registration of the case. The chemical examination report of the sample was received from State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court. The Chemical Examiner found quantity of resin in contraband 36.84% w/w and opined that entire mass of the exhibit is a mixture of cannabis and charas. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The mandatory provisions of the Act have not been followed. There is no independent witness of the recovery, which has been foisted on the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds as per directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that quantity of resin in the sample is 36.84% w/w as per Chemical Examiner report, hence in view of quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. The rigour of section 37 of the Act is applicable. The petitioner is resident of village Budsham, Tehsil Panipat, Haryana. He has submitted that in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. …3… 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Chemical Examiner report, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner comes within the category of commercial quantity. In these circumstances, rigour of Section 37 of the Act is applicable. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application before Special Judge, Rampur Bushahar, which he got dismissed on 16.5.2009 as not pressed. There is no change of circumstances. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. June 30, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.