HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Surinder Kumar – Petitioner
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.489 of 2024
Decided on 5.4.2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – In normal parlance, principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception – While considering prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether accusation is frivolous and groundless with object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in crime needs to be tested in background of self-imposed restrains or broad parameters mandated by law. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 21 and 8(C) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – To attain objective of NDPS Act and to ensure rule of law, such persons who are prima facie involved in nefarious drug abuse, such persons have no vested right to be enlarged on bail under pretext of alleged claim of violation of their liberty in Article 21 – Alleged assertion of infringement of personal liberty has to succumb to larger interest of society – Plea of seeking bail, claiming violation of personal liberty is a farce when liberty of a person ends where liberty of another including society at large is sought to be or actually violated – Balance has to be carved out between liberty of accused vis-à-vis danger of justice being throttled by release on bail of bail petitioner – Be it of small quantity or of intermediate quantity needs to be strictly dealt with – Bail petition dismissed. (Paras 11, 14, 19 and 20)
Result: Bail petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Ranjan Sharma, J.—The petitioner-accused (Surinder Kumar) has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, originating from FIR No.139 of 2023, dated 17.10.2023, under Section 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
Factual Matrix
2. The case set up by the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] is that the bail petitioner has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, on 17.10.2023 in FIR No.139 of 2023, registered at Police Station under Sections 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case set up is that on 17.10.2023, the police party while on traffic checking noticed a motorcycle Splendor bearing No. HP72A-2979 with one rider. On noticing the police, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] became perplex. On being asked by the police, he disclosed his name as Surinder Kumar-applicant/accused. The bag containing the Heroin/Chitta, weighing 5.65 grams was recovered from the bag, being carried by the bail petitioner (Surinder Kumar) herein.
2(i). After apprehending the bail petitioner, the codal formailities under Section 50 of the NDPS and other requisite formalities under the Act were undertaken. Thereafter the Rukka was prepared leading to the registration of the FIR.
2(ii). Consequent upon the registration of the FIR on 17.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] approached the Learned Special Judge-I Una, vide Bail Application No.470 of 2023 but the same was dismissed on 07.02.2024 as under:—
5. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that applicant is habitual offender. Already two cases of similar nature have been registered against him, in PS Amb pending adjudication before the Courts, bearing FIR No.68/21 and 3/23, Ld. PP for the State has also argued that there are also allegations against the applicant that he had affixed old number plates of another motorcycle on motorcycle and same was being used to transport the contraband as such he had also committed for offence u/s 420 IPC. Ld. PP has argued that keeping in view all these factors together, if applicant is released on bail he may intimidate the witnesses and effect the trial. As such, prayed that application be dismissed.
6. I have given deep thought to the rival contentions and scrutinized the record carefully.
7. The applicant has been arrested by the police in connection with case FIR No. 139/23 dt 17.10.2023 under Section 21, 8C of the ND&PS Act registered at PS Gagret with the allegation that on 17.10.2023 when police party led by HC Vijay Kumar, was present at old Amb road Gagret near Swan foundation Kaloh Velly at about 3.05 PM and intercepted a motorcycle bearing No. HP72A-2979 over which accused/applicant was riding and had thrown a small box from his pocket from which 5.65 gm heroin was recovered, The contention raised by the counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated cannot be decided at this stage and the same would be decided during trial. At the time of considering the bail application, the detail scrutiny of the evidence is not required, only following factors are required to be taken into. consideration:-
(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension or the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
In the present case, there are serious allegations against the applicant that he w
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. (Para 6) – Relied
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598. (Para 6) – Relied
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashish Chatterjee
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Bail – To attain objective of NDPS Act and to ensure rule of law, such persons who are prima facie involved in nefarious drug abuse, such persons have no vested right to be enlarged on bail under pre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail should be granted only when the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to belief or po....
Bail under the NDPS Act is discretionary, emphasizing public safety over personal liberty, especially when serious allegations of possession near commercial quantities exist.
Severity of the offence and potential danger to society are key factors in denying bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.
In narcotic offences, bail is only granted when it is proven that the accused is not involved with the contraband, with a stringent evaluation of public safety interests.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The main legal principle established is that the grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases is exceptional and should be based on the absence of prima facie evidence, the nature of the alleged contraba....
Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug....
Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted sparingly, balancing individual liberty with societal interests, and requires lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.