IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN)
No.38 of 2022 Between:-
MOHIT SHARMA, SON OF SHRI KULDEEP SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATER, P.O. AND P.S. BAROTIWALA, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
…..PETITIONER (BY MR. O.C. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND STATE OF H.P.
…..RESPONDENT (BY MR. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for order this day, the Court passed the following:
O R D E R
By means of present petition, regular bail has been sought by the petitioner in respect of FIR No.149/21, dated 05.12.2021, under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called ‘Act’), registered in Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P.
2. The prosecution case as projected in the status report is that on 05.12.2021, a police party on patrolling duty received a secret information that the petitioner was selling heroin near petrol pump at Bhater/Barotiwala. The information was reliable. Therefore, Section 42 of the Act was complied with. Independent witnesses were associated by the police party. Search party reached the spot in question and noticed the bail petitioner holding a carry bag. On seeing the police party, the petitioner starting moving swiftly. He was over powered by the police personnel. The bag carried by him was searched in accordance with law. 9.45 grams of heroin was recovered from the bag held by the petitioner. The recovery of the contraband led to registration of the FIR and arrest of the petitioner on
05.12.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police has completed the entire investigation. Further custody of the petitioner is not warranted. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Bater, Post Office Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. That the petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed by upon him in case of grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail as another FIR No.50/20, under Section 39(1) (a) of H.P. Excise Act was also registered against him. In view of the criminal history of the petitioner, probability of his indulging in similar offences cannot be ruled out.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 9.45 grams of heroin (alongwith weight of zip pouch). The quantity allegedly recovered from the petitioner though falls in the intermediate category under the Act, but is nearer to the small quantity notified under the Act. The petitioner has already spent two months in detention. As per the status report, investigation in the matter is complete. In so far as criminal history of the petitioner is concerned, no doubt FIR No.50/20 was registered against the petitioner under Section 39(1)(a) of H.P. Excise Act, but as per status report, the said matter was compounded by imposing compounding fee of Rs.7000/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner is resident of the State, therefore, his presence can be ensured in the trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, further detention of the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
(ii). The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.
(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iv). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
(v). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.
(vi). Petit