IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 420 of 2020 Decided on : 18.3.2020 Shiv Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P.

…Respondent ___________________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

________C________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Hemant Vaid and Mr.

Narender Guleria, Addl.

AGs with Mr.Vikrant Chandel and Mr. Narender Thakur, Dy. AGs, for the respondent-State.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

The instant petition, is, constituted under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C., where-through the bail-

applicant seeks indulgence, of, pre-arrest bail, in connection with FIR No. 61/18, of, 9.8.2018, constituting therein offences, under, Section 20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, registered, at, Police Staftion, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.

2. A perusal otf the status report, unfolds that the gross weight, of, the contraband, as allegedly recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession, of, principal accused Neeraj Sharma, being less than, commercial quantity thereof, rather, it, falling within, the, intermediate quantity thereof. The afore weight, of, the apposite contraband, as stands allegedly, recovered from the conscious, and, exclusion possession, of, principal accused Neeraj Sharma, who however, is, released on bail, does, also, hence, on, the principle, of parity, leverage in the bail-applicant, a, capacity, to, raise a valid contention that hence there, is, no strict statutory embargo, against him, and, alike the afore, for, hence his being granted, the, indulgence, of, pre- arrest bail, yet (a) the learned Additional Advocate General, submits, that since tfhe bail-applicant invites, vis-à-vis, his penal misdemeanor, the, mandate, cast under Setction 29, of, the ND and PS Act, (b) thereupon, he is required to be interrogated. However, the afore submission, is, rejected, as, it is not made in consonance, with, the status report, as, instituted before this Court.

3. In summa, when there is also no further disclosure in the status report, that, in the event, of pre-arrest bail, being granted to the petitioner/bail-applicant, there is every likelihood of (a) his tampering with the prosecution evidence, (b) influencing prosecution witnesses and (c) fleeing from justice. d) hence this Court is fortifyingly constrained, to, allow the application, subject to compliance, with, the hereinafter extracted conditions:-

i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with two surfeties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; t ii) That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency.

iii) That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police.

iv) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

v) That he shall deposit his passports, if any, with the Police Station, concerned.

vi) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody.

4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opifnion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any obsertvation made herein above.

Copy dasti.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge March, 18, 2020 Kalpana C