Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Parikshit Dhani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 577 of 2024
Decided On : 27-03-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Section 21 of the NDPS Act - [Section 439 of CrPC, Section 21 of NDPS Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized 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 point out towards accusation. The court also highlighted the nature of the crime as a relevant factor in considering the claim for bail. The court further emphasized the broad parameters to be taken into account for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, position or status of the accused, likelihood of accused absconding, possibility of accused tampering with evidence, and likelihood of repetition of the offence if left out on bail. The court also noted that the provisions of the NDPS Act are not to be construed liberally but to ensure effective implementation of the rule of law. The court held that the past criminal history/antecedents disentitle an accused to be enlarged on bail. The court also emphasized that the plea of seeking bail, claiming violation of personal liberty, is a farce when the liberty of a person ends where the liberty of another, including the society at large, is sought to be or actually violated. The court concluded that the bail petitioner did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner, Parikshit Dhani, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, originating from FIR No 21 of 2024 dated 14.02.2024, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated and stated that he had deep roots in the society and was innocent. The state authorities opposed the bail application, citing the recovery of contraband from the petitioner and his past criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prima facie accusation under Section 21 of the NDPS Act pointed towards the involvement of the bail petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner's past criminal conduct/history did not confer a right to be enlarged on bail. The court also emphasized the gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of punishment in case of conviction. The court concluded that the bail petitioner did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the claim of false implication by the bail petitioner, the recovery of contraband from the petitioner, and the opposition by the state authorities based on the severity of the accusation and the petitioner's past criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 21 of the NDPS Act, as well as the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regulating grant of bail. The court emphasized 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 point out towards accusation. The court also highlighted the nature of the crime as a relevant factor in considering the claim for bail and the past criminal history/antecedents as a disentitling factor for bail. The court also emphasized the need to interpret the provisions of the NDPS Act literally and not liberally to ensure effective implementation of the rule of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, concluding that the bail petitioner did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner [Parikshit Dhani], has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter (referred to as CrPC). originating from the FIR No 21 of 2024 dated 14.02.2024, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla (HP), under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Learned Advocate, is that petitioner is a resident of Village Nehra and Post Office Panog, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla (HP), and is a citizen of India and the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated for alleged offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act, originating from FIR No 21 of 2024, as referred to above. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has deep roots in the society and he has nothing to do with the commission of the alleged offence. It is stated that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of some other persons. It is further averred that the bail petitioner is innocent and there is no likelihood of absconding and jumping the bail, if granted by this Court. It is further averred that now nothing is to be recovered and the investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody. 2(i). Apart from this, the bail petitioner has averred that he shall participate in the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Agencies and shall undertake to appear in the trial and shall not cause any threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses. It is further averred that in case the bail petitioner is released on bail he shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
2(ii). In Para 15, it is stated that after registration of FIR on 14.02.2024, the bail petitioner had filed a Bail Application No 989 of 2024 on 04.03.2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, (Special Judge-II), Shimla, which was dismissed on 13.03.2024, which is annexed with the instant bail petition. In the above backdrop, the bail petitioner Parikshit Dhani has come up before this Court, praying for regular bail.
3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court, on 26.03.2024, the matter was adjourned for 27.03.2024 so as enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to have instructions in the matter. The matter was again listed on 27.03.2024, when the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his stand, as contained in the bail petition referred to above.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel Mr. Prashant Sharma, has opposed the bail application by stating that the FIR and the Status Report reveals that the prima facie or reasonable grounds to believe that bail petitioner had committed the offence. Learned State Counsel submits that in the instant case, the bail petitioner was involved in relation to 12.06 grams of Heroin/Chitta, which was duly recovered from the bail petitioner. The State Counsel further submits that the recovered contraband was much more than twice the minimum benchmark prescribed for Intermediate Quantity of Heroine/Chitta. Learned State Counsel further submits that the nature and gravity of accusation and severity of punishment and the past criminal history of having been involved in FIR No 27 of 2020 dated 25.2.2020 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act is sufficient enough to decline the prayer of the bail petitioner. Learned State Counsel submits that on enlargement on bail, there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner will repeat the offence and may again indulge himself in illegal activities of trafficking and sale and purchase of alleged contraband. He further that on release there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner may influence the witnesses.
4(i). The Learned State Counsel contends that the petitioner had filed a Bail Application No. 989/2024 on 04.03.2024 before the learned Additional
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 – 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....
Bail under the NDPS Act is discretionary, emphasizing public safety over personal liberty, especially when serious allegations of possession near commercial quantities exist.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
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....
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act due to the serious nature of drug trafficking charges and failure to meet statutory conditions, emphasizing public safety and legislative intent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
