Point of Law: Object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition filed under S. 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made on behalf of bail petitioner-Parma Ram, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 161, dated 2.9.2021, under Ss. 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Pursuant to orders dated 23.12.2021 and 5.1.2022, respondent-State has filed status report. ASI Ashok Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.2021, at 9.30 am, police after having received a secret information laid Naka at near HPMC Juice Shop at Sungal, District Bilaspur and stopped a Maruti Alto 800 bearing Registration No. HP-01K-7078 being driven by present bail petitioner and another vehicle i.e. Tempo Trax bearing registration No. HP-76-0647 being driven by persons namely Vir Chand and allegedly recovered 4.682 kg of Charas and currency of Rs. 4,29,500/- from the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647. At the time of recovery of contraband and currency, person namely Devender was also sitting in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647, being driven by the person namely Vir Chand. Since occupants of the aforesaid vehicles as detailed herein above, failed to render plausible explanation qua the possession of commercial quantity of contraband and currency of Rs. 4,29,500/- police after completion of formalities lodged FIR as taken note herein above and arrested all the persons i.e. Parma Ram, present bail petitioner, Vir Chand and Devender Kumar. During investigation Devinder Kumar, from whose vehicle commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, disclosed to the police that the contraband was to be further delivered/ sold to the person namely, Prakash Chand. Above named person also disclosed to the police that the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01K-7078 was being driven by Parma Ram, present bail petitioner, ahead of vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647, so that factum with regard to Naka if any laid by the police could be communicated to him. Since the present bail petitioner was allegedly piloting/escorting vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax), he also came to be named in the FIR and since 2.9.2021, he is behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that though nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of present bail petitioner but there is overwhelming evidence available on record to demonstrate that the present bail petitioner was in constant touch with main accused Devender and VIR Chand and was escorting vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax) by driving his car ahead of aforesaid vehicle and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated. Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while referring to S.29 of the Act submits that any person who abets or is a party to the offences punishable under the Act is also liable to be prosecuted under S. 29 of the Act and as such, there is no merit in the present petition and same may be dismissed accordingly.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that on the date of alleged incident, nothing came to be recovered from the vehicle bearing R