Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Avikash Minhas - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2836 of 2024
Decided on : 06-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, 29, and 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.056 kilograms of charas - Discrepancy in weight raised doubts about recovery - Rigours of Section 37 applicable as possession established - Court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. (Paras 4, 14, 18, 21)

(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must ensure reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail, as established in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 7, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 25.9.2023 for possession of charas, with discrepancies in the weight of the recovered substance. The prosecution argued that the petitioner would influence witnesses if released.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence of conscious possession of charas and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, denying bail.

Issues: The main issues were the discrepancies in the weight of the charas and whether the petitioner posed a risk of committing further offences if released.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the discrepancies did not negate the established possession and that the stringent conditions of Section 37 must be satisfied for 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 vide FIR No. 83 of 2023, dated 25.9.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (in short “the ND&PS Act’) at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution case, 1.056 kilograms ofcontraband was recovered from the petitioner. The prosecution's case is false. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.9.2023. There is a huge difference in the quantity recovered and the quantity received in SFSL, and the whole case has become suspect. 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 25.9.2023, when they received a secret information at 1.40 AM that vehicles bearing registration No. HP-37F-7813 and HP-37G- 3170 were transporting charas. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police intercepted the vehicles and associated two independent witnesses. The police recovered a carry bag from the dashboard of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-37F-7813, which contained 1.056 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. The charas was sent to FSL, and it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas containing 26.46 w/w resin. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court. Five witnesses out of nineteen cited by the prosecution have been examined till 3.1.2025. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. He would influence the witnesses.Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, 1.056 kilograms of charas was recovered from the dashboard of the vehicle. The case property was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur. Three samples of 40 grams each were taken, and 940 grams of charas was packed in the parcel. The result of the analysis shows that the actual weight of the cannabis was 38.711 grams, therefore, it is highly doubtful that the police had recovered 1.056 kilograms of charas. The benefit of the discrepancy in the weight is to be given to the accused. The rigours of Section 37 of ND&PS do not apply to the present case, and the petitioner is entitled to bail.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that this Court has to see a prima facie case while deciding the bail petition. The status report prima facie shows that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. The rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. Therefore, it was 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sec