Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ankush Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 654 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, and 29 - Pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving commercial quantity of charas, asserting false implication and lack of evidence - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted sparingly, especially in economic offences - The petitioner was named by co-accused and substantial financial transactions were established, necessitating custodial interrogation. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 18)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted if custodial interrogation is required, as it may hamper investigations and allow the accused to evade justice. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated in a narcotics case involving the transportation of charas, with evidence including financial transactions and co-accused statements. The police recovered 3.575 kgs of charas from the vehicle linked to the petitioner. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient material for interrogation and ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to the seriousness of the charges and the need for investigation. (Paras 18)
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the necessity of custodial interrogation in narcotics cases. (Paras 11, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail is not a right and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the nature of the offence is serious and involves economic implications. (Paras 7, 10)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the police had registered an FIR No. 233 of 2024, dated 19.10.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. The police had visited the petitioner’s house on 19.03.2025 and got warrants signed by the petitioner’s parents. There is no evidence against the petitioner. He was falsely implicated at the instance of the co-accused. The case was registered on 19th October, 2024, and the petitioner was available in his village. He is not likely to abscond. He is ready and willing to furnish the bail bonds and 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 18.10.2024. They received a secret information at about 12:30 am that a vehicle was transporting a large quantity of charas, and during its search, the charas could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. They found a vehicle bearing registration No. TO424CH6911A parked at 24 miles near Jonta. The police inspected the vehicle in the presence of Mahinder Singh, Up-Pradhan. The driver identified himself as Bhupinder Thakur, while the passenger identified himself as Jitender Thakur. Upon searching the vehicle, the police recovered seven packets containing black sticks wrapped in transparent plastic. The police examined the sticks and confirmed them to be cannabis. These were weighed, and their total weight was determined to be 3.575 kgs. The police seized the charas and arrested the vehicle's occupants. Bhupinder Thakur disclosed during questioning that Desh Raj @ Surinder had given him the charas with instructions to deliver it to Sonu. Police apprehended Surinder, who admitted to transferring money to Bhupinder Thakur’s account on 18.10.2024. Sonu had transferred a significant amount of money to Desh Raj's account. He revealed upon inquiry that he regularly supplied charas to Sonu. According to the analysis results, the exhibit was determined to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police obtained the customer application form of the mobile number used by Sonu to contact Desh Raj and also acquired CCTV footage regarding the deposit of the amount. It was ultimately discovered that Sonu's real name is Ankush Sharma, also known as Ganga (the present petitioner). The petitioner had transferred a large money to Desh Raj's account. The quantity of charas involved is commercial. The petitioner has absconded; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. The statement made by the co-accused to the police during the investigation is not admissible in evidence. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the police had recovered a commercial quantity of charas and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner had transferred a huge amount of money to the account of Desh Raj. He is to be interrogated about the destination of the charas so purchased by him, 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 of t
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in serious offences like narcotics, where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases involving narcotics, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for serious offences.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in narcotics cases should be granted sparingly, balancing individual rights with public interest and the necessity of effective investigation.
Pre-arrest bail under the NDPS Act is extraordinary and should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences and where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be denied in serious offenses when sufficient evidence warrants custodial interrogation.
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
