Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kehar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 785 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 18 - Pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with the cultivation of 4760 opium poppy plants found in his orchard - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving economic offences. (Paras 7, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Custodial interrogation - The necessity for custodial interrogation was highlighted, as it is essential for effective investigation, especially in serious offences like those under the NDPS Act. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of cultivating opium poppy plants, with the police asserting that the plants were found in his orchard, and he was apprehensive of arrest.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was involved in the cultivation of opium poppy plants and the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases where custodial interrogation is necessary, particularly in serious offences like those under the NDPS Act.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that police registered F.I.R. No. 59 of 2024, dated 07.04.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. As per prosecution case the police party was on patrolling duty on 07.04.2024 and they found opium poppy plants growing in an apple orchard. The plants were counted and found to be 4760. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The petitioner apprehends that he would be arrested. 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 07.04.2024. They saw an orchard in which opium poppy plants were growing. The police called Dile Ram, who told the police that the field belonged to the petitioner. The police counted the plants and found them to be 4760. The police preserved alongwith their roots ten plants from different places and destroyed rest of the plants. The plants were sent to SFSL Junga, H.P., and the result reads that the exhibits were samples of opium poppy plants. The field, where the plants were growing, was demarcated on 20.3.2025, and it was found to be bearing Khasra No. 269. The co- owners stated that the petitioner is in possession of the field as per a family settlement. The petitioner had absconded. He is to be interrogated. Hence, the petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. 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 was falsely implicated. There is no evidence that the petitioner had cultivated the opium poppy plants. The petitioner would join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had cultivated 4760 opium poppy plants, which is a huge quantity. The destination of the opium is yet to be traced. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for this purpose. 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. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre- arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.

8. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic offences are to be trea