Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J dismissed the petition and rejected bail to the accused as he was unable to justify and overcome the rigors under Section 37 NDPS Act.
The facts of the case are such that the police officials were patrolling when the police officials nabbed the accused on receiving secret information. A bag was found having 15 bottles of Chlorpheniramine maleate and codiene Phosphate syrup. Thereafter the police conducted other procedural requirements under NDPS Act and Cr.PC and arrested the accused. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing commercial quantity of Codine Phosphate, came up before the Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.
The bail petition was silent about criminal history and the status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.
The Court observed that the recovery is from the joint possession and the petitioner has not come up with any explanation to overcome the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The Court thus held “Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is dismissed.”
[Irshad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 6973, decided on 17-08-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearances
For petitioners- Mr. Kush Sharma
For respondents – Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Ram Lal Thakur and Sunny Dhatwalia
