IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ON THE 26^th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 677 OF 2022.

Between:-

SANJAY DUTT, SON OF SH. DHARAM CHAND, AGED 27 YEARS , VILLAGE KATRAH AND PO ROPA, TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTT. KULLU, H.P.

….PETITIONER.

(BY MR. YASHVEER SINGH RATHORE AND AJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

….RESPONDENT.

(BY MR. GAURAV SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 60 of

2021, dated 24.07.2021, registered at Police Station …2 Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

2. The investigating agency after completion of investigation has presented the challan before learned Special Judge, Kullu. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.07.2021, theu police party apprehended Luder Singh accused at polace near Seund Power House, who was having aC carry bag in his hand. On checking the carry bag, charas weighing 1.083 kg was recovered. During further investigation, accused Luder Singh is stated to have given a statement to the police that he was carrying Hthe recovered contraband for the petitioner, who had telephonically asked accused Luder Singh to sell the contraband for Rs.75,000/-. Petitioner was arrested on 4^th August, 2021. On perusal of call details of the mobile phone of petitioner, it was found that he had conversed with accused Luder Singh on 18^th July, 2021 and 24^th July, 2021, a number of times.

…3

3. Petitioner has sought bail in the above noted case on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The prosecution story is alleged to be totally absurd, baseless and imaginary. It has been contended that there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner is stated to be permuanent resident of Village Katrah, Post ofÏce Ropa, Toehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner has undertakCen not to tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is also averred on behalf of petitioner that earlier also petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before this Court which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.51 of

2022 and the same was withdrawn on 28^th January, 2022, with liberty to file afresh.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the records.

5. the quantity of charas involved in the case is commercial and thus rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act …4 are applicable. At the stage of bail, this Court is not to minutely scan the evidence collected during the investigation, however, this Court is not precluded from looking into the material so collected for prima facie assessment of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled against the bail petitioner.

6. From thue status report submitted by the respondent/Stoate, it is revealed that there were some mobile Cphone calls exchanged inter se petitioner and accused Luder Singh. Apart from this, no legal evidence to connect petitioner with the alleged offence has been collected. It is stated that petitioner during his custody Hwith the police made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and thereafter disclosed the place where accused Luder Singh was to handover the contraband to him. Such statement is neither relevant nor admissible in evidence. Similarly, respondent has relied upon the statement of co-accused Luder Singh to the effect that it was bail petitioner, who …5 had asked Luder Singh to bring the contraband to be handed over to the petitioner for consideration. Such statement again cannot be looked into in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Madras, 2021 (4) SCC 1.

7. Thus, the only material collected against the petitioner is the ualleged telephonical calls exc