The court established that possession of narcotics must be conscious, and bail may be granted based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.

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. 57/2025 dated 20.03.2025 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 , 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of six grams of heroin. The heroin was weighed by the learned Magistrate during the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and its weight was found to be 5 grams, which is a small quantity. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20^th March, 2025 when they found a car bearing registration no. HP-23 D-4087 parked on the road. The police checked the car in the presence of two independent witnesses. The driver identified himself as Arshad Khan, and the other occupants identified themselves as Rohit Kumar, Anubhav (the present petitioner), Lalit, Nikhil Kumar, and Yugal. The Police checked the vehicle and recovered 6 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the car. As per the result of the analysis, it was found to be diacetylmorphine (Heroin). Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police was a small quantity, and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Krishan Gopal vs. State of HP 2019:HHC:10206 , and Minnie Khadim Ali Kuhn vs. State NCT of Delhi WP (Crl) 338/2012 , decided on 08.05.2012, in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin and he cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and its possession should not be viewed lightly. Therefore, 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 as under 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 committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri)