Non commercial quantity of drugs reflects an addict not a peddler: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The person in possession of a non commercial quantity of drugs reflects that the person is not a drug peddler; rather it seems that he is a drug addict, who needs proper counseling and treatment to give-up narcotics. This proclamation was made by Himachal Pradesh High Court presided by J. Chander Bhusan Barowalia in the case of Sushil Chauhan &amp; others vs State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.MPs(M) No. 349, 350 &amp; 351 of2021]. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND&amp;PS Act, registered in Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners were permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail. As per the prosecution story, when a police team was on routine patrol duty near Tapan Hyundai, Shamlech, police spotted a vehicle, which was parked alongside the national highway with the three petitioners in it. As the police had suspicion of petitioners’ having some contraband, police associated two independent witnesses and thereafter conducted search of the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, police recovered a box of cigarette, which contained a plastic pouch having heroin. The recovered contraband was found to be 7 grams. During the course of interrogation, petitioners divulged that they purchased the contraband from a person at Haryana, but they did not disclose the whereabouts of that person. It came in the investigation that petitioner, Sushil procured the phone number of a person with whom he had a word and thereafter a person delivered the contraband to him, but petitioner Sushil divulged that he is not acquainted with that person. As per the police, the investigation was in its initial stage and in case the petitioners were enlarged on bail, they might tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.
 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 28 02 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MPs(M) No. 349 350 & 351 of2021 Decided on: 26th February 2021 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 3421: Sushil Chauhan ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 3521: Himanshu Negi ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 3521: Sahil Negi ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia Judge. Whether approved for reporting 1 Yes. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rohit Sharma and Mr. Anuj Gupta Advocate. For the respondent State: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti Addl. AGs with ASI Ramesh Chand I.O. Police Station Sadar Solan District Solan H.P. ___________________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia Judge.which was parked alongside the national highway. When the police team looked into the vehicle the person sitting on the rear seat was sleeping. Thereafter the driver of the vehicle on being inquired by the police divulged his name as Sahil Negiand he abruptly started the vehicle due to which the sleeping person woke up. Police inquired the names of other persons who divulged their names as Himanshu Negi and Sushil Chauhaneach with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court Police authorities as and when required. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 28 02 HCHP 6That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. That the petitioners will 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above the petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti. 26th February 2021 Judge 