IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted sparingly, balancing individual liberty with societal interests, and requires lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Budh Bahadur Singh @ Fauji, has come up before this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking pre-arrest bail, originating from FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, registered against one Shri Dinesh Shahi with Police Station Moorang, District Kinnaur, [H.P.], under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The background facts as set up by Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate is that on 12.03.2024 the police party was on patrolling duty with I.O. kit and during such patrolling at 3:00 pm when the police party reached Kharo on NH-05 in Government vehicle, then at 4:00 pm near Raabchic Dhaba, a person was seen walking towards them from hot water spring side, who was carrying a backpack and on seeing the police he turned back towards hot waters.

2(i). It is the case of the bail petitioner that on suspicion the police apprehended the said person who was found perplexed. The identity of such person ultimately came to be Dinesh Shahi son of Ali Bahadur Shabi resident of Nepal and at present resident of Village and Post Office Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, [H.P.]. The bag was searched in the presence of the witnesses as per the averments made in the bail petition. On search, the contraband, weighing 01.78 kg [Opium-Afeem] was recovered from Dinesh Shahi, as referred to above. After completing codal formalities the rukka was sent leading to the registration of the FIR against Dinesh Shahi referred to above.

2(ii). In this background, the case set up by the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] is that, during investigation, the police visited the house of the bail petitioner on 16.03.2024 but since the bail petitioner was not present, therefore, the brother and neighbor of the bail petitioner was asked to inform about the same. It is also averred in para No.4, 5 and 6 of the bail petition that the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] has no connection or no concern with the alleged recovery of contraband from the main accused [Dinesh Shahi], as referred to above. It is further stated that the bail petitioner is being sought to be implicated falsely, for reasons known to the prime accused [Dinesh Shahi], referred to above. It is further stated that the bail petitioner has lost his 21 years old son, recently, for which he had gone for completing the rituals and the allegations/disclosures made by Dinesh Shahi [main accused] were baseless. In the bail petition and para No.7 to 10, the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] has submitted the requisite undertakings that the bail petitioner shall join the investigation, shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence and shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons, connected with the case whatsoever.

3. The instant bail petition [Cr.MP(M) No.545 of 2024] was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 20.03.2024 when, this Court asked the respondent/State authorities to file the status report [taken on record].

3(i). The status report was filed by the State authorities, reveal that the main accused is Dinesh Shahi, who had been resorted in illegal trafficking of opium which is borne out from the status report. The status report further reveals that the main accused [Dinesh Shahi], in collaboration with one Tilak Chander Chanara, had been resorting to such activities, who were arrested by the police also. The status report further reveals that the police has issued a notice mandated under Sections 40/41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the bail petitioner to join the investigation. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner has been directed by the police/State authorities to join the investigation, only on the ground that, at this stage, one of the accused-Tilak Chander Chanara had allegedly called/contacted the bail petitioner from his mobile between 10.03.2024 to 13.03.20