IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ravinder Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 442 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for drug-related offences, asserting innocence and lack of evidence against him - The prosecution contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender with prior convictions and pending cases - The court emphasized the significance of criminal antecedents and the potential threat to society if released - The parameters for granting bail were discussed, including the nature of accusations and the likelihood of re-offending - The court found that the petitioner had not established a case for bail, leading to the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 1 - 22 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, criminal antecedents, and potential for witness tampering or re-offending - The court reiterated that the mere fact of being in possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs does not automatically entitle one to bail. (Paras 6 - 10 )
(C) Criminal Antecedents - The presence of prior convictions and pending cases significantly impacts the decision on bail, indicating a likelihood of re-offending. (Paras 12 - 16 )
(D) Disability - The petitioner's physical disability does not mitigate the risk posed by his criminal history. (Paras 19 - 20 )
(E) Judicial Custody - The duration of custody and trial progress are relevant in bail considerations, with the court noting that the petitioner had only recently been arrested. (Paras 20 - 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 191 of 2024, dated 14.11.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Kangra, H.P. The prosecution case is based on the absurd, baseless and imaginary story. No case is made out against the petitioner. Two cases are pending against him in which he was granted bail. He was exonerated in another case. The petitioner had no role in the commission of crime. No recovery was made from him. The petitioner has a 40% disability in his left leg. The petitioner 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 14.11.2024. They found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-40A-8578 parked near Smella Railway Station, Link Road, at 6:30 p.m. The police went to the vehicle and found that three persons were sitting in it. They could not give any satisfactory reason for parking their vehicle. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of Ajay Kumar and Anil Kumar and found 5.77 grams of heroin inside the dashboard. The driver revealed his name as Ravinder Kumar. The person sitting beside him revealed his name as Aseem and the other person sitting on the rear seat revealed his name as Sanjay Kumar. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to SFSL Junga for chemical analysis and was found to be containing Diacetylmorphine (heroin). Two F.I.R.s are pending against the petitioner. He was convicted in F.I.R. No. 156 of 2011 dated 13.11.2011, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner is a drug peddler. He would indulge in the commission of similar offences, and he would intimidate the witnesses on his release on bail. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.
4. Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, the learned counsel of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He is suffering from 40% disability. The quantity of narcotics found in the possession of the petitioner in earlier cases was intermediate. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC:5122 in support of his submission.
5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. He was convicted by the competent Court of law for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. This shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of t
The presence of criminal antecedents significantly influences bail decisions, emphasizing the need to protect society from habitual offenders.
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to criminal antecedents, prior bail violation via similar offence, and prima facie conscious possession from presence at recovery site.
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity due to accused's criminal antecedents, prior similar offences, repetition risk, and societal drug menace, rejecting parity with co-accus....
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
Vehicle occupants in conscious possession of intermediate heroin quantity recovered therein; bail denied despite no Section 37 rigours, considering drug menace, criminal antecedents, trafficking indi....
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate quantity due to criminal antecedents under NDPS, risk of repetition, and societal drug menace, emphasizing balanced consideration of liberty against public ....
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....
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the accused's criminal history and the nature of the offence, with no entitlement to bail as a matter of right.
Prolonged pre-trial detention may warrant bail despite serious accusations; rights to speedy trial and personal liberty are paramount.
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
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.