Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Cannabis Cultivation Case (NDPS) on Co-Owned Land
In a recent judgement by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Dinesh Bharota, in a case involving the cultivation of cannabis. The case, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pertained to the cultivation of 278 cannabis plants on a piece of co-owned land in the Chopal district of Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
The court’s decision, rendered on 12th June 2023, came after considering the submissions made by both the petitioner and the State of Himachal Pradesh, as well as the status report and record produced by the respondent.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner had cultivated the cannabis plants on the land in question. However, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner neither resided in the area nor had exclusive ownership or possession of the land. The maintenance of the land was purportedly entrusted to a person of Nepali origin.
After reviewing the facts of the case, the court took note of the co-ownership of the land, as revealed by the demarcation conducted by the respondent. The court also considered the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General, who stated that the investigation was complete and no further recovery was required from the petitioner. The Investigating Agency confirmed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was unnecessary.
Based on these factors, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua concluded that the petitioner had made a case for confirmation of the interim protection previously granted. The court allowed the petition and made the interim protection absolute, subject to certain conditions.
The conditions imposed on the petitioner include: (i) cooperating with the investigation, (ii) not tampering with evidence, (iii) obtaining prior permission from the court before leaving the country, (iv) refraining from inducing or threatening the Investigating Officer or any person associated with the case, (v) attending trial hearings unless exempted by law, and (vi) informing the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about the petitioner’s place of residence during bail and trial.
The court made it clear that the observations made in the bail order were specific to the bail petition and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to decide the matter without being influenced by these observations.
Date of Decision: 12.06.2023
Dinesh Bharota vs State of Himachal Pradesh
