IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kewal Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 544 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 25 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 307 grams of charas, asserting no recovery from him and no notice under Section 50 given - Court considered parameters for granting bail as per Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 1 , 7 , 12 )
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court emphasized that conditions imposed must facilitate justice and secure the presence of the accused without infringing on their liberty. (Paras 7 , 14 )
(C) Previous acquittal - The petitioner has no criminal antecedents as of today, having been acquitted in a prior case. (Paras 10 , 11 )
(D) Rigours of Section 37 - The quantity of charas found does not invoke the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of charas during a police patrol, asserting innocence and lack of recovery from him.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail considering the time required for trial and absence of criminal antecedents.
Issues: The main issues were the necessity of custodial interrogation and the appropriateness of bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should not be kept in custody indefinitely, emphasizing the need for reasonable bail conditions.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 14 of 2025, dated 14.2.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Kunihar, District Solan, H.P. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. No notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to him. The petitioner has no concern with the recovered contraband. His custodial interrogation is not required. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 13.2.2025. They received a secret information at 12:25 AM that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-08A-6193 was transporting a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced the information into writing and intercepted the vehicle at 1.00 AM. The driver revealed his name as Kewal Ram. Another person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Raju. The police searched the vehicle and found 307 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. An FIR No. 11/11 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Parwanoo, and he was acquitted by the Court on 29.5.2015. As per the report of analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet is being prepared and filed before the Court.
3. I have heard Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. No recovery is to be effected from him, and the prosecution's case is false. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 307 grams of charas, which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liber
Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra
The court established that bail should not be denied indefinitely, emphasizing reasonable conditions to ensure justice and the accused's presence during trial.
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ....
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply as the quantity of heroin is less than commercial, allowing bail with conditions.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that the parameters for granting bail include the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the accused's societal ties, allowing bail when evidence is insufficient.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court established that the parameters for granting bail must ensure the accused's presence during trial, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions and the concept of conscious possession in ....
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.