JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 119/19 dated 28.11.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent State has filed the Status report in terms of order dated 24.2.2021. ASI Roshan lal, I.O. P.s. Parwanoo, District Solan H.P., is also present with records. Records perused and returned.

2. Record/status report reveals that police on 28.11.2019 at about 5:10 pm, after having received secrete information raided room No.104 of Hotel Royal Regency, Parwanoo and allegedly, recovered 18.44 grams of heroin/chitta and currency notes of Rs. 45,000/- from the suit case of the present bail petitioner. Besides above, police recovered three syringes with needle, foil paper and half burnt note of Rs.10. Since bail petitioner and other-co-accused namely Sonu Kumar failed to render proper explanation qua the possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, registered FIR, as detailed herein above, and since then, bail petitioner is behind bars, whereas other co-accused namely Sonu Kumar stands already enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.3.2021 passed by coordinate Bench of this court in Cr.MP(M) No. 264 of 2021. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner coupled with the fact that co-accused already stands enlarged on bail, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under the changed circumstances.

3. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly. Learned Deputy Advocate General while making this court peruse record submits that petitioner is not a drug addict, rather is a drug paddler and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may also indulge in such like activities again and as such, prayer for grant of bail may not be accepted.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of the alleged incident, police on the basis of secrete information raided room No. 104 of Hotel Royal Regency, Parwanoo and allegedly recovered intermediate quantity of heroin/chitta from the luggage of the accused. Co-accused Sonu Kumar , who stands already enlarged on bail, claimed before the police that luggage from where contraband came to be recovered, belongs to the present bail petitioner, but record reveals that room No.104 in the hotel in question was booked in the name of person namely Saurabh Kumar, who in his investigation disclosed to the police that he had booked the room for the accused. But it does not appear from the record that police made effort, if any, to find out involvement, if any, of Saurbh Kumar in the case. Besides above, this Court finds that police after having effected recovery from room No.104 made parcel containing 18.44 grams of heroin/chitta, three syringes with niddle, one foil paper and one half burnt currency note of Rs. 10 and then, sealed the same with impression “y” in eight seals, however, inventory presented by the investigating agency under Section 52 (A) (2) before the Magistrate reveals that three syringes with needle were not produced. Moreover, report of FSL reveals that parcel made available to it contained syringes also. Apart from above, on the parcel received by FSL, court seals were fixed, but there is no such mention in the certificate issued by the magistrate under Section