Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kundan Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 514 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of intermediate quantity of heroin - 37 FIRs against petitioner, with prior convictions - Court emphasized the significance of criminal antecedents in bail considerations - Rigours of Section 37 do not apply as quantity is intermediate, but does not guarantee bail - Release on bail would send a negative signal to society. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 16, 18)
(B) Bail considerations - Factors include nature of accusations, criminal antecedents, and likelihood of re-offending - Court must ensure that bail does not impede justice or threaten public safety. (Paras 6, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing 7.53 grams of heroin, with a history of 37 FIRs, including prior convictions under the NDPS Act. The police intercepted a vehicle where the petitioner was present, and heroin was found.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and emphasized the importance of considering criminal antecedents in bail applications.
Issues: The main issues were the implications of the petitioner's criminal history and the significance of the quantity of drugs found.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that the release of the petitioner could pose a threat to society.
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 F.I.R. No. 24 of 2022, dated 3.9.2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. Later on, the custody of the petitioner was transferred to Roopnagar, Punjab and he is lodged in District Jail at Roopnagar, Punjab. As per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-74B-3399 and found 7.53 grams of heroin in it. The petitioner was sitting with the driver in the vehicle. 37 FIRS have been registered against the petitioner, out of which, he was convicted in some, acquitted in some, and some are pending. The quantity of heroin stated to have been in the possession of the petitioner is an intermediate quantity. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Roopnagar, Punjab, and he has roots in the society. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner 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 2.9.2022. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-74B-3399. The driver tried to reverse the vehicle after seeing the police. The police stopped the car. The driver got frightened. The person sitting on the left side suddenly threw a small transparent plastic pouch out of the car. The police checked the packet in the presence of independent persons and found 7.53 grams of heroin in it. The person sitting on the left side identified himself as Kundan Lal (petitioner). The driver identified himself as Ridhamjot Singh and the person sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Shivam and Sunil Kumar. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to SFSL for chemical analysis and was found to contain Diacetylmorphine (heroin). 34 cases were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was involved in drug cases earlier. He would indulge in the commission of similar offences, and intimidate the witnesses in case he is released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Ms Kavita Kajal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
4. Ms Kavita Kajal, learned counsel of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of narcotics stated to have been found in the possession of the petitioner is intermediate. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed. She relied upon the judgments of Dilpreet Singh @ Golu Vs State of Punjab 2024:PHHC:123478, Parvej Khan Vs The State Govt. of NCT Bail Application No.2863 of 2023 decided on 7.6.2024 and Avtar Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2024:HHC:3769 in support of her submission.
5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier. He was convicted by the competent Court of law in some of the offences. This shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail.Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. 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. Whil
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
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.
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offendin....
The presence of criminal antecedents significantly influences bail decisions, emphasizing the need to protect society from habitual offenders.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug....
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate quantity due to criminal antecedents under NDPS, risk of repetition, and societal drug menace, emphasizing balanced consideration of liberty against public ....
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
