Point of Law: The prima-facie involvement of petitioner in the dangerous trade of contraband cannot be ignored merely on account of the fact that he has no past criminal history. It cannot be guaranteed that there will be no re-indulgence by the petitioner, in case released on bail.

ORDER :

Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 41 dated 13.6.2021 registered at Police Station, Narcotics Control Bureau, Sub Zone, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act. The petitioner was arrested on 8th February, 2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that officials of Narcotics Control Bureau (for short ‘NCB’), Sub Zone, Mandi had laid a ‘Nakka’ at place Pul Gharat near Mandi town on a secret information. Simranjeet Singh and Amanpreet Singh were apprehended with motorcycle No. PB-13-AD2700. Whereas Simranjeet Singh was the rider, Amanpreet Singh was on the pillion. 526 grams of charas was recovered from the bag carried by Ms. Amanpreet Singh and 780 grams of charas was recovered from the bag carried by Simranjeet Singh. Both were found to be husband and wife. The case was formally registered and both the above noted persons were arrested.

3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found that Simranjeet Singh had purchased charas from the petitioner against consideration. Efforts were made to trace the petitioner, but he could not be found until he filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before this Court in the month of December, 2021. During interim bail, petitioner joined investigation. The application for pre-arrest bail was finally rejected by this Court on 14.12.2021.

4. As per case of respondent, the complicity of petitioner in the crime has been found. Frequent phone calls between the petitioner and Simranjeet Singh have been traced during relevant period. Additionally, money transaction has also taken place between them.

5. On the other hand, petitioner has made a prayer for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C on the ground that he is innocent and the respondent is not possessed of any legal evidence to connect petitioner with the alleged crime. It is further contended that the petitioner has no past criminal history. He is permanent resident of Village Shangna, Post office Mani Karan, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed. Section 37 will not be applicable in so far as the allegations against the petitioner are concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that NCB has already filed a complaint against Simranjeet Singh and Amanpreet Singh alleging inter-alia that Simranjeet Singh had purchased 800 grams of charas from the petitioner, which was intermediate quantity.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Tamanna, Advocate for the respondent-NCB and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. This Court, while deciding bail application will not minutely scan the material collected during investigation, still a cursory look at such material would be necessary only for the purposes of assessing seriousness and gravity of charges against the petitioner.

8. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has been found to be transferred from the account of Simrajeet Singh to the bank account of petitioner on 28.05.2021 i.e. about 15 days before the apprehension of Simranjeet Singh with the contraband. The explanation rendered on behalf of the petitioner for such money transaction does not appear to be genuine and plausible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that co-accused Simranjeet Singh was negotiating some deal with the petitioner regarding taking of land on lease, but he has failed to place on record any tangible material to prove such fact. He relied upon the fact that exchange of telephone calls between Simranjeet Singh and petitioner was since long time and this fact should be taken in support of his contention. However, this again cannot be considered as corroborative to the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. The plea raised appears to be an afterthought. Simranjeet Singh, in order