Point of Law : While considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 439 of CRPC, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner namely Bittu, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 116 of 2019 dated 10.12.2019, under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. Respondent-State has filed the status report in terms of order dated 13.5.2022.

2. Perusal of status report/record reveals that on 9.12.2019, police after having received secrete information laid Naka near Banjar road and allegedly signaled the car bearing registration No. HR26AU1919 to stop, but occupants of the car after having seen the police fled away from the spot leaving the aforesaid car on the spot. Police checked the car in question in the presence of the independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 61.80 kgs of poppy straw. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police lodged FIR detailed herein above and thereafter on the basis of registration of the car involved in the aforesaid incident apprehended person namely Kuldeep Singh, who allegedly disclosed to the police that car was sold by him to present bail petitioner Bittu. The above named person further disclosed to the police that on 9.12.2019, he alongwith present bail petitioner Bittu had gone to Banjar to purchase poppy straw for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure made by the co-accused Kuldeep Aingh, petitioner herein came to be named in the FIR alongwith other co-accused. Though co-accused Kuldeep Singh and Roop Singh were arrested in the month of January, 2020, whereas present bail petitioner absconded and could only be apprehended on 9.11.2021, after filing of the challan in the competent court of law and since then he is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that when car in question was stopped for checking by the police, bail petitioner alongwith co-accused Kuldeep Singh was travelling in the car, but they after seeing the police fled away from the spot. While making this Court to peruse the status report, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that three cases; two under the NDPS Act and one under Excise Act, already stand registered against the petitioner in the past and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in these activities.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that at the time of checking of car bearing registration No. HR26AU1919, none was found sitting there, rather as per case of the prosecution, occupants of the car after having seen the police fled away from the spot. It is only on the basis of registration number of the car in question, co-accused Kuldeep Singh was arrested, who during investigation disclosed to the police that he alongwith present bail petitioner had gone to Banjar on 9.12.2019, to purchase poppy straw for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Co-accused Kuldeep though disclosed to the police that vehicle was sold by him to the present bail petitioner Bittu, but status report nowhere suggests that effort, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of the investigating agency to verify the aforesaid factum. Co-accused Roop Singh, from whom allegedly contraband w