The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on factors such as the petitioners' lack of criminal history, their status as drug addicts, and the nearly complete investigation, while also considering their likelihood to tamper with evidence or flee from justice.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release, in case FIR No. 98 of 2021, dated 01.07.2021, under Sections 21 & 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars, so they be released on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as emanates from the records is that on 01.07.2021, a police team was on routine patrol duty at Solan city and when at about 01:10 p.m. the team was present near Dohridiwal, they received a secret tip-off that a truck, having registration No. HP64-9566, which is coming towards Solan from Sapathu, has two occupants and they have heroin. Police associated independent witnesses and laid a nakka. Police intercepted the aforesaid truck and found two persons sitting inside it, including the driver. On being inquired, the driver of the truck divulged his name as Anil Kumar and other person disclosed his name as Gaurav Sharma (petitioners herein). Thereafter, the police conducted search of the vehicle and recovered a plastic pouch, which contained some whitish substance and on being tested from drug detection kit, it was found to be heroin. The recovered contraband on being weighed found to be 10.94 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map, photographed/videographed the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. A case under the apt sections of the ND&PS Act was registered and the petitioners were arrested. During the course of investigation, the petitioners disclosed that they are drug addicts and purchased the contraband from some unknown person for their use. Police seized the aforesaid truck alongwith its documents and key. The contraband, on being chemically examined, found to be a sample of diacetyl morphine (heroin). Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found possessing heroin. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so their bail applications be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners. The custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police for investigation, so the petitioners are required to be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail applications. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence, so in case if they are, at this stage, enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as they are residents of t