JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that an FIR No. 176/2023, dated 23.08.2023 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act at Police Staton, Sadar, Solan. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is not required for investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 23.08.2023 when a secret information was received at 6:00 pm that Shivam was selling heroin and in case of his search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police associated independent witnesses and found Shivam. He threw something on seeing the police and tried to run away. The police apprehended him and found 5.42 grams of heroin. The police arrested him and recovered the heroin. The police conducted the investigation. Shivam revealed on enquiry that he had purchased heroin from Saurav. The police arrested Saurav, who revealed that heroin was sold to him by the present petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered 15.95 grams of heroin from him. The police seized the heroin. As per the result of the analysis, the substance found in the possession of the petitioner and Saurav was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The petitioner could not produce any passport or visa. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was also added.

3. I have heard Mr. Saravedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Saravedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by Gaurav, the co-accused, which is not a legal piece of evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the police had recovered a mobile phone containing a chat between Gaurav and the petitioner, which clearly shows that the petitioner had supplied heroin to Gaurav. The consumption of narcotics is adversely affecting the young generation of the society, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-

“12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable d