IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No.2303 of 2023 Reserved on: 09.11.2023 Date of Decision: 30.11.2023 Shavta Pun ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent Coram f Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mtr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General with H.C. Kulwant Singh No.53, I.O. P.P. City Solan Police Station Sadar, Solan.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered vide FIR No. 51 of 2023 at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P on 12.03.2023. The petitioner is innocent and the allegations made against him are false. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. Keeping the petitioner in custody would cause hardship to the petitioner and his family members. The challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court and the

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

petitioner is not required for investigation. The quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner was intermediate and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the petitioner’s case. An FIR No.72 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner on 17.09.2019 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act in Police Station Kandaghat. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The police filed a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty when secret information was received that the petitioner was staying in Room No. 7 of the Hotel and was selling heroin. In case of a search, a huge quantity of heroin could be rhecovered. The information was reduced to writing and sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police reached the hotel with the receptionist. A search of the room was conducted, during which one Digital Weighing Machine and 21.43 grams of heroin were recovered. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. As per the result of the analysis, the substance recovered from the petitioner was found to be Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences in the past. FIR No.72 of 2019 dated 17.09.2019 at Police Station Kandaghat and FIR No.34 of 2021 dated 08.03.2021 were registered against him at Police Station Dhali. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learnePd counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned De.puty Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learnedf counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no mtaterial to connect him with the commission of the offence. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to his case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for Hthe respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences in the past. Releasing the petitioner on bail would be prejudicial to the interest of the society as the petitioner can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case, he is released on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions 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 Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip K