Parma Nand Pandey vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the role of the petitioner, and the parameters for considering a bail application as propounded by the Supreme Court. While acknowledging the prosecution's case regarding the petitioner's alleged involvement and the recovery of drugs from the shop managed by him, the Court found that at this stage, the petitioner could be enlarged on bail. The Court did not comment on the merits of the case, emphasizing that the observations were strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one local surety and abide by further conditions imposed by the trial court to ensure his presence during investigation and trial, including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, and not committing similar offenses. The trial court was directed to comply with previous High Court instructions regarding bail matters.

Facts

The petitioner, Parma Nand Pandey, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC in FIR No. 314 of 2021, registered under the NDPS Act. The case involved the recovery of Lomotil and Alprax tablets. The petitioner was arrested after a co-accused, Satnam Singh, disclosed his involvement. The petitioner was found in charge of Deep Medicos, from where 100 tablets of Lomotil and 375 tablets of Alprax were recovered. The petitioner could not produce a license or permit for these drugs. Investigations revealed that the shop owner, Virender Singh Tokas, could not be traced initially. The Drug Controller stated no license was issued to Deep Medicos. While the petitioner produced some purchase bills, only one matched the batch number of drugs recovered from Satnam Singh. Virender Singh Tokas later appeared, claiming the shop was rented to the petitioner and his brother, Dayanand Pandey, since 2016, and presented a drug license valid until 2012 and a GST registration in Dayanand Pandey's name.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Parma Nand Pandey, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in FIR No. 314 of 2021, registered under Sections 21, 22, 29, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, considering the quantity of drugs recovered and his alleged role. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his involvement was based solely on the disclosure statement of Satnam Singh. He contended that the actual owner, Virender Singh Tokas, manipulated documents to frame the petitioner and his brother. He also argued that the quantity of drugs recovered (100 Lomotil and 375 Alprax tablets) was less than commercial quantity, and the batch numbers of recovered medicines did not match invoices produced by the petitioner, suggesting the main accused did not procure drugs from him. He further submitted that his brother's absconding should not lead to his prolonged incarceration without trial. Revenue's Arguments: The prosecution case, as detailed in the status report, indicated the petitioner's involvement in the illegal business of supplying prohibited drugs, with transactions made from Dayanand Pandey's bank account. The investigation agency concluded that the petitioner was involved in the commission of offenses under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.