AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused No.,Petitioner,CrMPM No.,Date of decision
A-1,Shivam Monga,1717 of 2020,4-1-2021
A-1,Shivam Monga,194 of 2021,4-2-2021
A-5,Hem Ra,1751 of 2020,3-11-2020
A-5,Hem Raj,82 of 2021,4-2-2021
A-6,Hiri Devi,1359 of 2021,19-8-2020
A-6,Hiri Devi,1901 of 2020,4-1-2021
h) He is in jail for around a year; and,,,
i) In jail, company of hard-core criminals is and will destroy his mental state.",,,
On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur,",,,
Ld. Additional Advocate General for the State, contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence. Further, the quantity involved is",,,
commercial, and S. 37 of the NDPS Act's restrictions do not entitle the accused to bail. The accused has yet not discharged the presumption under S.",,,
35 of the NDPS Act. The crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.",,,
REASONING:,,,
The decision of this Court in Satinder Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 391 of 2020, decided on 4th Aug 2020, covers the proposition of law",,,
involved in this case, wherein this Court has held that satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The ratio of the",,,
decision is that to get the bail in commercial quantity of substance, the accused must meet the twin conditions of S. 37 of NDPS Act. It implies that",,,
the accused should satisfy its twin conditions and come out clean.,,,
The quantity of charas allegedly recovered from the alleged joint possession of the petitioner is 1.642 kilograms, and thus falls in the category",,,
commercial quantity. The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the rigors of S. 37 of NDPS Act. The arguments raised on his behalf do not,,,
constitute legal grounds to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of NDPS Act, as enacted by the Legislature. Given above, at this stage, the petitioner fails to",,,
make out a case for bail.,,,
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per newspaper reports, the State of Himachal Pradesh is legalizing cannabis (Charas), subject to",,,
the rules and regulations framed in this regard. Be that as it may, the petitioner may explore what benefits such rules, regulations, and the policy",,,
change might apply to the persons involved in the commercial quantity of charas (Cannabis). The policy change may open new possibilities for bail to,,,
the persons involved in the commercial quantity of charas (Cannabis) by making out the new grounds for bail. Thus, it shall be open for the petitioner",,,
to file a new bail petition pointing out the new grounds in the changed scenario if it happens. He may also file another application on changed,,,
circumstances or with better particulars.,,,
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.",,,
Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new",,,
petition on different grounds.,,,