The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's previous involvement in a similar offense and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present bail application is maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No.100 of 2016, dated 20.06.2016 under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution story, on 20.06.2016 around 7.20 PM, ASI Rattan Chand alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty at place Reedi. He received secret information that accused Deepak Kumar is indulged in the trade of selling Psychotropic Substances, for which he is about to come from his home towards place Kandor. He sent this information to Police Station for registration of the case and also complied the provision of Section 42(2) of the Act. When accused was seen coming with the bag, Police searched his bag from which 18 bottles of Corex, each containing 100 ml and one box containing 144 Capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon plus were recovered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed heinous crime, spoiling the youth of the Country and the recovery has been affected from him. He has further argued that the petitioner was involved in selling the huge quantity of Narcotics Substance and the manner in which the crime has been committed makes it a fit case where the judicial discretion is not required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

4. Taking into consideration the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner was previously involved in the similar kind of offence. Though, the petitioner is the resident of the place, but there is reasonable apprehension that he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence. At this stage, as the petitioner is involved in the second case, the judicial discretion, to admit the petitioner on bail is not required to be exercised. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.