Ajay Mohan Goel, J
1. By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has prayed for his enlargement on bail, in FIR No.253 of
2017, dated 29.10.2017, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kullu,
District Kullu, H.P.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold the ‘Charas’, weighing 3kg 45 grams to the main accused and accordingly, he has
been charged under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation which has been carried out by the Investigating Agency nowhere connects
the petitioner with the commission of the offence and as the petitioner has been charged under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and in the absence of there being any cogent material with the Investigating Agency to connect him with the commission of the
crime, no purpose is going to be achieved by keeping him in custody. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.
4. The petition stands opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and there is
each and every possibility that in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may tinker with the evidence and may create hindrance in the
course of trial. Learned Deputy Advocate General further refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation carried
out by the Investigating Agency does not connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence and she has submitted that as per the
investigation, there is a strong linkage between the petitioner and the accused, demonstrating that the petitioner is guilty of the offence for which he
has been charged.
5. Be that as it may, this Court refrains from making any observation on the merit of the case, but suffice it to say that the allegation against the
petitioner is with regard to the sale of 3 kg 45 grams of ‘Charas’ to the main accused, which quantity undisputedly is a commercial quantity and
learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to why the petitioner stood named by the principal accused as to from whom the
cannabis (Charas) were purchased.
6. Accordingly, as the Court does not finds any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, because the Court concurs with the
submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General that the petitioner being a local person can influence the witnesses and also recourse the trial,
if released on bail. The petition stands dismissed.
