Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Shyam Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 994 of 2025
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 29 - Pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR for transportation of charas - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences and narcotics - The petitioner was allegedly involved in transporting 4.36 kilograms of charas, a commercial quantity, necessitating custodial interrogation - The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to the gravity of the accusations and the need for investigation. (Paras 1, 5, 15, 19)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of course and must be considered with caution, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required. (Paras 7, 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of being involved in the transportation of charas, with evidence primarily based on statements from co-accused, which were argued to be inadmissible. The police sought the petitioner's custody for interrogation.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the necessity of custodial interrogation for the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving serious offences like narcotics, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 270 of 2024, dated 12.12.2024, was registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act). The police are seeking the petitioner's arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Thepetitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. He belongs to a respectable family and is unlikely to jump over the bail. The petitioner would abide by 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 12.12.2024, when a secret information was received regarding the transportation of charas in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the supervisory officer. The police signalled the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 to stop; however, the driver sped away with the vehicle towards Talwara. The vehicle was stopped at a lonely place, and the occupants of the vehicle ran away from the spot. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas. The police subsequently arrested Raj Kumar, who revealed on inquiry that he was told by Shyam Lal to take the vehicle towards Jawali. Two persons signalled him to stop the vehicle, but he sped away in the vehicle at the instance of Shyam Lal. Subsequently, he and Shyam Lal ran away after stopping the vehicle at a lonely place. Shyam Lal accompanied him who was to deliver the charas to Banti Kumar alias Baba at the instance of Raj Kumar alias Raju. The police arrested the co-accused Banty Kumar alias Baba, who admitted that he used to purchase charas from Raj Kumar alias Raju. Banty Kumar alias Baba also threw away the SIM of his phone. The mobile phones were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala, and the result of the analysis is awaited. As per the investigation, the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle. The police are searching for him. He is to be interrogated. The key to the vehicle is also to be recovered from him. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard M/s Anjali Soni Verma and Shivani Tegta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioner should not be sent to custody based on the inadmissible evidence. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the transportation of a commercial quantity of charas. Rigours of Section 37 of IPC apply to the present case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the involvement of other persons. 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. 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 pre- arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:
“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extrao
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases involving narcotics, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in serious offences like narcotics, where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for serious offences.
Pre-arrest bail under the NDPS Act is extraordinary and should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in narcotics cases should be granted sparingly, balancing individual rights with public interest and the necessity of effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences and where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be denied in serious offenses when sufficient evidence warrants custodial interrogation.
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
