Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Lal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) Nos 650 and 666 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General with HC Ashu Aggarwal, No. 388, IO Police Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P.

Pre-arrest bail under the NDPS Act is extraordinary and should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Pre-arrest bail - Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail for an offence under NDPS Act involving recovery of 125 capsules containing Tramadol - Quantity deemed intermediate; Section 37 rigours not applicable - Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation and the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail, referencing P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 - Petitioners' prior involvement in similar offences noted - Court found prima facie case against petitioners, leading to dismissal of bail petitions. (Paras 1, 12, 18)

(B) Anticipatory bail - Court must exercise discretion cautiously, balancing individual rights and public interest - Granting bail may hamper investigation and custodial interrogation is essential for effective questioning. (Paras 7, 10, 15)

(C) Violation of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act - Court found no merit in petitioners' claims regarding violations, affirming the prima facie case against them. (Paras 16, 18)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 15 of 2025, dated 01.03.2025, has been registered against the petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Police Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, HP. As per the prosecution's case, the police effected the recovery of 125 capsules containing 61 grams of tramadol. The quantity of Tramadol is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 do not apply to the present case. There is a violation of Section 42 (d) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. They would join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. They would not tamper with the prosecution evidence and would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.

2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 01.03.2025. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-71A-4955 came from Tirmali. The rider of the motorcycle was not wearing a helmet. The police stopped the motorcycle and demanded the documents. The motorcycle rider revealed his name as Kuldeep Singh, and the pillion rider revealed his name as Lal Singh. Both of them appeared to be frightened. The police checked the motorcycle and recovered capsules bearing the words Spas C plus CORF. They were counted and found to be 125. They were weighed on an electronic scale, and their weight was found to be 62.16 grams. The police seized the capsules. The capsules were sent to FSL for analysis, and as per the result, they were found to contain Tramadol. Their weight was found to be 61.625 grams, and the weight of the powder was found to be 49.375 grams. FIR No. 14 of 2009, dated 07.03.2009, was registered in Police Station Renuka Ji and FIR no. 185 of 2021, dated 03.11.2021, was registered against petitioner Kuldeep Singh in Police Station Paonta Sahib. The petitioners are to be arrested. They are to be interrogated to determine the source and destination of the capsules. They would indulge in the commission of similar offences and destroy the evidence in case of their release on bail; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard. Mr Deepak Kaushal learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The quantity of Tramadol stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. There is no prohibition in granting pre- arrest bail in offences registered under the NDPS Act. He relied upon the judgments of Ram Singh versus State of H.P. in Cr.MP(M) No. 600 of 2020 decided on 05.05.2020 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1930 of 2019, titled Pyare Lal versus State, decided on 07.11.2019 in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the police have to determine the source and destination of the capsules. Petitioner Kuldeep was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier, which shows that he is a habitual offender. The psychotropic substances are affecting the young generation adversely, and cases of this nature should not be viewed lightly; hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of