Case Law Details
Dayanand Pandey Vs State of Himachal Pradesh (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and stated that the case is not fit for exercising discretionary power under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the matter of dealing with prohibited drugs.
Facts- Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’), seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.314 of 2021, dated 24.08.2021, registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) in Police Station Una, District Una, H.P.
In the status report, details in which co-accused Satnam Singh, on the basis of trustworthy information from a reliable informer, was arrested for his involvement in business of prohibited drugs and for recovery of 3600 tablets of Lomotil and 298 tablets of Alprax 0.5.
Conclusion- GST Number, Lease Deed of the shop are in the name of petitioner and Bank Account wherefrom numerous transactions have been made to the supplier of the medicines/drugs to various dealers of the medicines have been made, were/are in the name of petitioner and his involvement in the illegal business of supplying drugs is evident from these documents as well as his conduct and, therefore, he is also liable for recovery of commercial quantity of prohibited drugs in present case as he was performing active role in the business being run without licence and supply of prohibited drugs without bills.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
