IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Khushi Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No.318 of 2025
Decided on : 08-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application filed for regular bail in connection with FIR No.51 of 2024 - The petitioner was arrested on 10.01.2025 and is in judicial custody - No contraband was found in the possession of the petitioner, and the prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence. (Paras 1, 8, 11, 15)
(B) Bail - The object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not punitive or preventive - Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule, and further detention would be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. (Paras 11, 13)
(C) Conditions for bail - The petitioner must attend trial, not tamper with evidence, and inform the police of his residence. (Paras 15)
(D) The court emphasized that any opinion expressed does not influence the merits of the case. (Paras 17)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of granting bail.
Result: The bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is to be released on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail. The same arises out of FIR No.51 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024, registered at Police Station Deha, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the status report. Copy whereof, has also been supplied to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The incident, in the case at hand, is dated 16.12.2024. On the said date, Police party departed from Police Station Deha for patrolling and checking drug menace in Balag and Naina area. At about 8:15 AM, the Police party reached Balag Nala. At that particular point of time there was a white coloured car (Alto K-10) bearing registration No.HP-10-1414 parked there facing towards Sainj. There were three occupants in the same. The police party questioned the occupants of the vehicle qua it having been parked in an isolated location. No satisfactory response was forthcoming.
4. Besides the aforesaid, the car had a foul smell. The same created a suspicion qua the vehicle carrying some objectionable article. The driver of the car disclosed his name as Ankush son of Sh. Roshan Lal, r/o Village Rantari PO Dharara Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP. The person seating adjacent to driver’s seat disclosed his name as Rishabh Negi s/o Sh. Upkar Singh, r/o near Polytechnical College Rohru and person sitting on the rear seat disclosed his name as Lucky Thakur s/o late Sh. Veer Pal, r/o Village Parsa, PO Lower-Koti, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP.
5. On searching the vehicle, one foil paper was recovered under the foot mat of the co-driver’s seat. The foil contained 10.23 grams of heroin. The owner of the car is Risabh Negi.
6. During the investigation, financial transaction amounting to Rs.37,400/- inter se the present bail petitioner and the accused-Ankush Kumar was found.
7. The bail petitioner, in the case at hand, was arrested on 10.01.2025. Since then, he is in custody. Presently in judicial custody. Challan, in the case at hand, stands filed on 13.02.2025. Presently the matter is listed for service of the accused.
8. A financial transaction inter se individuals can be compelling circumstantial evidence, when it demonstrates a clear connection between the accused and the alleged criminal activity. However, such evidence must be corroborated with other forms of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, no contraband has been discovered in the possession of the bail petitioner. The onus is on the prosecution to establish a direct and persuasive nexus between the bail petitioner and the purported offence in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence.
9. In the status report, it has been pointed out that there are two other cases pending against the present bail petitioner. Both are stated to be registered under the NDPS Act. Trial is stated to be in progress. In both the cases his guilt is yet to be ascertained at the trial.
10. At the time of deciding the bail petition, a detailed discussion of evidence so collected and produced by the prosecution, is to be avoided, as it may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the accused/applicant.
11. Trial is going to take time for its conclusion. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. Further detention of the accused would not serve any fruitful purpose, rather would prove pre-judicial to the rights of the petitioner.
12. Punishment begins after conviction. Every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence.
13. The object of bail is to secure t
The court ruled that bail should be granted when no contraband is found in possession, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged cri....
Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The court emphasized that bail is a means to secure attendance at trial, and personal liberty should only be curtailed when necessary, reflecting the presumption of innocence.
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, absence of prior criminal history, and lack of risk of flight or witness tampering.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless necessary to ensure attendance at trial, with conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right that should only be curtailed when necessary, and bail should secure attendance at trial without being punitive.
The court granted bail based on the presumption of innocence, noting that the quantity of contraband did not invoke stricter bail provisions.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity of judicial discretion in granting bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted to ensure attendance at trial, not as a punitive measure.
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.