IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

Cr.MP(M) No. 2772 of 2023 Reserved on: 24.11.202.3 Date of Decision: 07.12.2023.

Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with SI Prem Lal, PS Sadar, District Solan, H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 100/2023, dated 22.5.2023 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

‘ND&PS Act’). The petitioner is innocent and he was wrongly arrested. He has been in Judicial custody since 22.5.2023. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. The challan has been presented before the Court and charges are yet to be framed. The custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by thue Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitiono be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. C

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.5.2023. Secret information was received at 4.00 PM that the petitioner was a tenant in the building owned by Jyoti Devi. He was supplying heroin to the young generation and in case of a search of his room, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing and associated independent witnesses. The police searched the room in the presence of the petitioner and recovered 10 syringes and 22.22 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The substance recovered from the petitioner was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin) after the chemical analysis. FIR No. 223/98, FIR No. 26/2010, FIR No. 300/2010 and FIR No. 32/21 have also been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 300/10, FIR No. 26/10, and FIR No. 223/98, however, FIR No. 228/19, FIR No. 239/12 and FIR No. 32/21 are still pending before the Court. The challan was presented before the Court and is listed for the prosecution evidenceu on 9.11.2023. The petitioner would indulge in the commissioon of a similar offence in case he is released on bail. TherCefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is intermediate and the rigours of Section 37 do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, she 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 petitioner was involved earlier in the commission of a similar offence. He is supplying heroin to the young generation and would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case he is released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

g7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by ithe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @

Deepu @ Depak, 2023