IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
(2) There is no complete bar for court to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Sandeep Sharma, J.—Bail petitioners, namely Devi Pal alias Bittu and Lot Ram @ Sanju, who are behind the bars since 15/17.01.2021 respectively, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 06 of 2021, dated 14.01.2021, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Banjar, District Kullu, H.P.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed the status report and HC Ajay Kumar, has come present with records. Records perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 13.01.1021, police after having received secret information that huge consignment of contraband is likely to be transported near Gharatgad near Kalwari, constituted a raiding party. Allegedly, on the intervening night of 13th /14th January 2021, at 1.45 AM, three persons carrying gunny bags (Bohra) on their shoulder were seen coming from Sanaradh towards Dewari by the police. After having seen the police, persons carrying gunny bags got perplexed and tried to flee from the spot. One person namely, Choveshwar though was apprehended by the police, whereas bail petitioners namely, Devi Pal alias Bittu and Murali succeeded in fleeing from the spot. After having associated independent witnesses, police effected search of gunny bags and allegedly recovered 110.90 Kg of charas from three bags. Since, no plausible explanation, if any, ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid huge quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, arrested the person namely. Choveshwar, who allegedly during investigation disclosed to the police that charas was being carried by him alongwith two persons namely, Devi Pal alias Bittu and Murali. Choveshwar allegedly disclosed to the police during the investigation that bail petitioner Lot Ram told him that in case he wants to get rid of NDPS cases registered against him, he may supply him charas and as such, he alongwith persons, namely Devi Pal and Pradeep @ Murali were going to Lot Ram to deliver the charas, but before that they were apprehended. In the aforesaid background, a case under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act came to be registered against the present bail petitioners as well as Pradeep alias Murali. At present all the accused, named hereinabove, are behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated because at no point of time recovery, if any, ever came to be effected from their conscious possession, rather their names came to be incorporated in the FIR on the basis of statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of the Act. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that incarceration for indefinite period during trial of the bail petitioners is totally impermissible, especially when same has been effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused.

5. Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel representing bail petitioner Lot Ram, vehemently argued that neither any recovery was ever effected from Lot Ram nor there is anything on record to suggest that Lot Ram had any connection with the person, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered. Similarly, Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel representing bail petitioner Dev Pal, stated that since petitioner was not apprehended on the spot, he cannot be linked with the recovery of contraband on the alleged date of incident. Lastly above named counsel submitted