Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Paras - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2977 of 2024
Decided on : 01-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime, particularly when co-accused confessions are inadmissible.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of heroin, asserting innocence and lack of evidence - No recovery from petitioner, only from co-accused - Court emphasized the need for reasonable conditions for bail and the inadmissibility of co-accused confessions - Parameters for bail considered from Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 7-17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) - Discretion of court in granting bail must facilitate justice and ensure presence of accused - Conditions imposed must be reasonable and not defeat bail purpose. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 27.2.2024 for alleged drug offences, asserting no connection to the crime and no recovery from him. The police report indicated recovery from a co-accused and prior criminal history of the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to connect the petitioner to the crime, allowing bail with conditions.

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused confessions and the sufficiency of evidence for bail denial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the inadmissibility of co-accused confessions warranted bail.

Result: Petition allowed, bail granted with conditions.

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. 36 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent, and he has not committed any offence. No recovery was effected from the petitioner, and there is nothing to connect him with the commission of crime. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Salogra. He has deep roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 27.2.2024. The matter was listed on 19.12.2024 for the service of accused Mohammad Khalid. There is no likelihood of the early commencement of the trial. FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 6.6.2022, was registered against the petitioner. 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 were on patrolling duty on 27.2.2024 when they received a secret information that Kapil and petitioner Paras were occupying Seat Nos. 5 and 6 in the bus bearing registration No. HR-55GV-3524. They were transporting heroin. The police completed the formalities and checked the bus. The petitioner was occupying Seat No.6, and Kapil was occupying Seat No.5. Kapil had a bag with him. The police checked the bag in the presence of the witnesses and recovered 7.82 grams of heroin during the search. Police arrested the petitioner and Kapil and seized the heroin. The police interrogated the petitioner and Kapil, who revealed that they had purchased 8 grams of heroin from Mohammad Khalid for Rs.20,000/-. The police also arrested Mohammad Khalid. The call details record of the petitioner and Mohammad Khalid showed that they were in touch with each other. Mohammad Khalid was released on interim bail, but he absconded. As per the result of the analysis, the substance recovered was confirmed to be Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin). FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 06.06.2022, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Parwanoo. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of release on bail. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 6.3.2025. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. No recovery was effected from him. The police have relied upon the petitioner’s confession, which is not legally admissible. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is the brother of Kapil, from whom 7.82 grams of heroin was recovered. The petitioner was in touch with Mohammad Khalid, and he was earlier involved in the commission of a similar offence. He would commit a similar offence in case of release on bail. 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: -

“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 objecti