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.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 6.19 grams of heroin - Investigation complete, but prior criminal antecedents noted - Court emphasized that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially in drug-related offences. (Paras 1, 4, 16, 20)

(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the criminal antecedents of the accused. (Paras 7, 12, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of heroin, asserting false implication and lack of need for custody. The prosecution highlighted prior offences and the potential for re-offending.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient material connecting the petitioner to the crime and emphasized the seriousness of drug offences.

Issues: The main issues were the implications of prior criminal history and the nature of the drug offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior criminal antecedents significantly impact bail decisions, and the mere possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs does not guarantee bail.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) vide FIR No. 249 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan H.P. As per the prosecution case, the police party searched the premises of petitioner and found 6.19 grams of heroin kept beneath the mattress. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi. He was falsely implicated. The investigation of the case is complete, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner has an aged mother, a young wife, and the children, who are dependent upon him. The petitioner has deep roots in society, and there is no apprehension of his absconding. 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 19.12.2024. They received a secret information at 7:45 p.m. that petitioner Ram Chander and Happy were residing in the building owned by Pardeep Kumar Chandel. They were selling heroin, and in the case of their search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing. The police associated an independent witness, Pardeep Kumar Chandel, and went to the room where the petitioner and Happy Singh were present. The Police searched the room and recovered 6.19 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and Happy Singh. The heroin was sent to SFSL Junga, and the same was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heorin). The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ludhiana, and the Aadhar Card shows his address as resident of Delhi. F.I.R. No. 69 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana (Punjab) and F.I.R. No.166 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Mahindra Park, North West Delhi. The challan has been filed before the Court. Now the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 05.05.2025 for the supply of copies.

3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Ms. Kanta Thakur Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he 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 was found involved in the commission of similar offences earlier. This shows that the petitioner is a Drug Peddler. Heroin is affecting the young generation adversely, and such types of offences should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner can indulge in 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at 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 committe