Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 174 (HP)

GURMAIL SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-05-30

M.R.VERMA

body2005
JUDGMENT M.R, Verma, J. (Oral) - The petitioner/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has preferred this application for grant of bail to him in case FIR No.. 267 of 2005, dated 25.4.2005, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. (hereafter referred to as the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station, Una. 2. The allegations against the accused are that on 25.4.2005, after compliance of the relevant provisions, on a raid conducted in the house of the accused in his presence, 37kgs. of poppy husk was recovered. The investigation in the case is complete except that the report of the Chemical Examiner is awaited. The accused is presently in judicial custody. 3. The bail has been prayed, for on the grounds that the accused refused to be a police witness in a case, therefore, police have turned inimical towards him and he has been falsely and illegally implicated in the commission of the alleged offence whereas he is innocent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused is lesser than the commercial quantity, therefore, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPs Act are not attracted to the case and the accused deserves to be released on bail, more so, because of his allegation that the police is inimically disposed of towards him and has implicated him in this false case. 6. A perusal of the record, prima facie does not support the plea of the accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case as alleged by him. On the contrary, a perusal of the record prima facie, reveals his involvement in the commission of the offence as is the case of the prosecution. 7. 6. A perusal of the record, prima facie does not support the plea of the accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case as alleged by him. On the contrary, a perusal of the record prima facie, reveals his involvement in the commission of the offence as is the case of the prosecution. 7. It is, no doubt, true that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of the accused is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPG Act are not applicable to the present case, nevertheless it cannot be said that in case a person is found in possession of a quantity of the contraband lesser than the commercial quantity, he must be invariably released on bail. The bail has to be refused or granted on various considerations and the quantity if not commercial, will only render the application liable for consideration within the framework of Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. It is alleged in the police report and not disputed for the accused that FIRs No. 22 of 2003, dated 10.1.2003; 244 of 2003, dated 30.4.2003 and 428 of 2004, dated 21.6.2004, all under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, are registered against the accused at Police Station, Una. Against this background, the apprehension of the prosecution that if released on bail, the accused would re-start his illegal occupation of bringing poppy husk from Punjab and sell it in Himachal Pradesh as he has been found doing continuously and for which three other cases have been registered against him, cannot be said to be unfounded: The likelihood of an accused to indulge in the commission of any offence if released on bail, as in this case, is always a good ground to deny bail to him. Therefore, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. As a result this application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.