IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs does not entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right; societal implications of drug abuse are significant in bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 28 of 2024, dated 21.2.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’), registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police searched a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12Y-8814 and recovered 960 capsules containing Tramadol and other drugs. The police also recovered 22.92 grams of heroin. The police arrested Roshan Lal alias Vicky. He revealed that he had purchased the drugs from Tej Pratap. The police arrested Tej Pratap, who got the petitioner arrested. The police recovered 32.45 grams of heroin from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.2.2024. He was falsely implicated. There is nothing to connect him with the commission of crime except the statement made by the co- accused. The prosecution has not completed the evidence, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20.2.2024. They received a secret information at 6.20 PM that Roshan Lal alias Vickey was selling heroin, and he would be transporting the heroin in a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12Y-8814. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated two independent witnesses and intercepted the vehicle. The police recovered 22.82 grams of heroin and 960 capsules containing Tramadol from the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle identified himself as Roshan Lal. The police arrested him and seized the drugs. Roshan Lal revealed during the interrogation that he had purchased the drugs from Tej Pratap Bhatia. He had also transferred money to the account of Tej Pratap Bhatia. Police arrested Tej Pratap Bhatia, who revealed on inquiry that he had purchased heroin from a Nigerian National who could be got arrested by him. He led the police to the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered 32.45 grams of heroin from him. As per the report of analysis, the capsules contained Tramadol, and the sample of heroin contained Diacetyl morphine. The prosecution cited 44 witnesses out of whom five have been examined. The matter was listed on 11.3.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is the supplier of heroin, and he was also found in possession of 32.45 grams of heroin. He would abscond in case of release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the police recovered 32.45 grams of heroin from the petitioner, which is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. There is a delay in the progress of the trial; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is a supplier of heroin, which is affecting the younger generation adversely. The petitioner is a resident of a different country, and he would abscond in case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State o