The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Jhudu Ram has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.136 of 2022, dated 18.10.2022, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid case, which has been termed by him as ‘false’, for allegedly possessing 3.115 kg of charas.

3. The applicant is stated to be the permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the application.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the story of the prosecution is not confidence inspiring. According to the applicant, the evidence, which has been collected by the Investigating Officer, during investigation, is not reliable, admissible or sustainable in the Court of law.

5. Highlighting the non-compliance of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, it has been pleaded that the statement of co-accused cannot be used as evidence, unless the same is made in the Court.

6. All these facts have been pleaded to show that in all probabilities, the applicant will be acquitted on the evidence, so collected. As such, a prayer has been made that the twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are fulfilled, in this case.

7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

9. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17.10.2022, SI Narayan Lal, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty. When, he was present at Gusheni Market, then, he received a secret information regarding the fact that one person, namely Jhudu Ram (applicant), is coming from Bathahar to Gusheni side, on foot, having rucksack on his shoulder.

10. As per the said information, if the said person is apprehended and searched, then, large quantity of charas could be recovered from his possession. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable and due to paucity of time and due to the fact that the Court was closed, it was not possible for police party to obtain search warrant or authorization. According to the Investigating Officer, in case of delay, there were chances that the contraband could be removed. As such, IO has complied with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to Dy.SP, Headquarter, Kullu, through Ct. Tej Ram.

11. Thereafter, IO called Jai Singh, Panch, Gram Panchayat Tung, upon which, said Jai Singh and Narender reached at the spot and they were associated as independent witnesses. At about 08:40pm, IO, as well as, police party noticed a person, coming from Bathahar side. He was having rucksack on his right shoulder. The description of the said person was matched with the secret information. The said person was identified by the informant as ‘Jhudu Ram’ (applicant). He was nabbed by the police and his bag was searched, in which, the contraband (charas) was found, which on weighment, was found to be 3.115 kg. Other codal formalities were completed.

12. Subsequently, the accused (applicant) was arrested. Ruqqa was prepared and sent to Police Station and on that basis, FIR, in question, has been registered against the applicant. The contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga, for chemical analysis, after complying with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and positive report has been received.

13. As per the status report, out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined and case was listed for prosecuti