IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications to be considered, as well as the importance of establishing a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No.15 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 8.03.2023 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide FIR No.15 of 2023. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The Police recovered 2.603 grams of charas from the co-accused and the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The version of the Police is highly improbable. The petitioner was not instrumental in the arrangement of the contraband in question nor had he any communication pertaining to the sale, purchase and transportation of the contraband. The petitioner is a respectable person in the society and the investigation is silent regarding the role attributed to the petitioner. The SIM was not issued in the name of the petitioner and it was found to be registered in the name of some other person. The WhatsApp call detail record shows that the main accused —Sanju was in touch with Vicky Bhai from Jaipur and the bail petitioner is not connected to the present case. The petitioner is a shopkeeper and had some bank transactions in February because Sanjay had purchased some hardware items from the petitioner’s shop. There is no link evidence and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner had committed any offence. The petition has been filed on fresh grounds as the supportive evidence was not filed during the previous petition; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed.

3. The State has filed reply asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 02.03.2023. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration no. HP01K-7535. They searched the vehicle and recovered 2 kg 603 grams of Charas during the search. The driver of the vehicle revealed his name as Sanju. The police arrested the driver. Sanju made a disclosure statement that the Charas were given to him by one Vipin Singh (present petitioner). He could identify the place where the Charas was handed over. The police checked the mobile phone of Sanju and found that the petitioner had talked to Sanju six times. He had also paid the money to the petitioner. Sanju identified the place where Charas was handed over to him. As per the report of the analysis, the substance was found to be Charas having 30.14% w/w resin in it. Sonu Devi made a statement that she had handed over one SIM to Sanju. Kirna Devi made a statement she had handed over a SIM to the petitioner. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the SIM was not issued in the name of the petitioner and the money was paid by the main accused to the petitioner for the items purchased by him from the shop of the petitioner, which is duly supported by the bill issued by the petitioner. These documents could not be produced during the earlier bail petition; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. A commercial quantity of charas was recovered from the co-accused and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at